/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170207.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 7, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 27 Headlines 1-800 FLOWERS: Certification of Employee Class Sought in "Rodkey" AES DRILLING: "Cole" Suit Seeks Certification of Engineers Class AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Lichtenthal" Securities Suit AIR CANADA: Quebec Court Authorizes Ticket Glitch Class Action ARISE VIRTUAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice ARS NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in "McGee" Suit BENORE LOGISTIC: "Perkins" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class BT GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action CANADA: Merchant Law Group Pursues Sixties Scoop Class Action COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Court Conditionally Certifies Jailors Class COLONIAL NURSING: "Jones" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA COVO TRATTORIA: Faces "Padilla" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law DAVITA INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action DELAWARE: "Noble" Lawsuit Dismissed DONALD TRUMP: Broad Suit Challenges Immigration Order DUKE ENERGY: Tells Coal Ash Pit Neighbors to Waive Claims ELECTRONIC ARTS: Bid to Certify Madden NFL Nationwide Class Nixed FACEBOOK INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss TCPA Violation Suit FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: "Magee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT GAP INC: Hit with TCPA Suit Over Autodialed Calls GIGAMON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports GIGAMON INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit GKNY1 INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit Seeking to Recoup Overtime Pay HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Rejects Settlement of "Lengel" FCRA Suit HONDA: Hit With TCPA Class Action Over Airbag Safety Calls ILLUMINA INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit INTEGRATED TECH: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Bid to Amend Securities Suit Granted INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Averts Product Liability Class Action JOHNSON CONTROLS: No Lone Pine Case Management Order, Judge Says LENDING CLUB: NY Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration LTG LLC: Faces "Miranda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MAG ENTERPRISES: Doesn't Properly Pay Dancers, "Morin" Suit Says MALLINCKRODT PLC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set MANITOBA: Flood Evacuees' Suit Certified MANPOWER INC: Settlement in "Mata" Suit Gets Initial Approval MARK OBENSTINE: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Estakhrian" MIDCOAST ENERGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Judge Bumb Certified Settlement Class MRO CORPORATION: Judge Seals Discovery Documents in "Wilson" Suit MYLAN INC: Faces Class Action Over Clomipramine Price-Fixing MYLAN INC: NECA-IBEW Sues Over Generic Clomipramine-Price Fixing NAT'L FOOTBALL: Former Cheerleaders File Wage Class Action NEA DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Driver's OT, "Johnson" Suit Claims NEAL TRUCKING: Poisson Seeks Settlement Approval NEUSTAR INC: Faces "Parshall" Securities Suit in Delaware NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Ceragioli Class Certification Bid Withdrawn OCWEN LOAN: Judge Approves $600K Deal to Settle Software Error OPHTHOTECH CORP: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set OREGON: 10 Districts Opt Out of Timber Management Class Action ORGANIGRAM: Could Face Suit Over Use of Unapproved Pesticides PGA INC: "Schilling" Suit Seeks Certification of Opt-out Class PGA INC: Asks Court to Decertify Class in "Schilling" Suit PIXARBIO CORP: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit PROJECT INVESTORS: Accord with Account Owners Has Initial Okay Q.E.D. ENVIRONMENTAL: Asks Court to Deny Certification of Class QUALCOMM INC: Patent Policy Reason for Antitrust Target QUALCOMM INC: Sued Over Alleged Baseband Processor Monopoly RESPOND POWER: Third Circuit Revives False Add Class Action RIDDELL: Named Defendant in Concussion Class Action ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Faces Securities Class Action ROYAL PIZZA: Faces "Ixcoy" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws SA GEAR: Must Defend Against "Williamson" Class Suit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Handley" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA SOHAB INC: Faces "Padron" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SOUTHERN COMPANY: Monroe County Fund Files Securities Lawsuit SOUTHERN COMPANY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit STINGRAY PRESSURE: Faces "Lackie" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TIME WARNER: Manigo et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses TRUMP NATIONAL: Judge Awards $5.7MM Judgment in Golf Club Case TWO JINNS: Bid for Initial Settlement Approval Under Submission UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Arbitration in EATS Courier Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Drivers' Class Action in California UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Launch Class Action in Ontario UNITED STATES: Faces 40+ Lawsuits Over Trump Immigration Order UNITED STATES: Settlement in "Greenwood" Suit Has Initial Okay UNITED STATES: Northwest Immigrants Rights Project Files Lawsuit US METALS: Carteret Residents File Class Action Over Contaminants VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Teleflex Deal VISTA OUTDOOR: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Suit VOLKSWAGEN: Resists Granting Settlement to EU Car Owners VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Reaches Settlement with FTC in Emissions Case VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Second Class Action in UK Over Emissions WAL-MART STORES: "Ridgeway" Plaintiffs Get $5+ MM in Restitution WALT DISNEY: Settles Animators' Anti-Poaching Class Action WELLS FARGO: "Layog" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to N.J. Court WIRTZ REALTY: "Casarez" Suit Seeks Certification of Class * Ogletree Deakins Attorneys Review Gorsuch Arbitration Opinions * Seyfarth Shaw Attorney Analyzes Class Certification Rulings * Value of Wage-and-Hour Class Action Settlements Up in 2016 ********* 1-800 FLOWERS: Certification of Employee Class Sought in "Rodkey" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Pamela Rodkey and Cherie Cummings, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees nationwide, and on behalf of the Ohio and Oregon Classes, the Plaintiffs, v. 1-800 Flowers Service Support Center, Inc., Harry and David, LLC, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00311-TMR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for entry of an order conditionally certifying and authorizing notice to the following group of employees: "all nonexempt employees who were employed by Defendants and paid overtime and incentive pay, commissions and/or other bonuses, within the past three years preceding the Complaint filing date". The Plaintiffs further move the Court to: 1. allow collective members 60 days to return their Plaintiff consent forms to Plaintiffs' counsel; 2. approve the form of Plaintiffs' proposed notice, Plaintiff consent form, and reminder notice; 3. authorize Plaintiffs' counsel to mail and email the notice at the beginning of the 60-day notice period; 4. authorize Plaintiffs' counsel to mail and email a reminder notice at the 30th day of the notice period; 5. order Defendants to post the Court-approved notice on Defendants' intranet or employees' dashboard; 6. order Defendants to produce a list of all nonexempt employees who were employed by Defendants and paid overtime and incentive pay, commissions and/or other bonuses, within the past three years preceding the Complaint filing date, including their name, job title, email address, mailing address, and dates of employment; and 7. order Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the last known telephone number, date of birth, and last four digits of the employee's Social Security number, if available, within three business days of Plaintiffs' request, if any of the sent notice and consent forms are undeliverable because of an incorrect mailing address. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wXfqNLQY The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256 3200 Facsimile: (612) 215 6870 E-mail: srey@nka.com - and - Alan Leiman, Esq. Drew G. Johnson, Esq. LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC 44 West Broadway, Suite 326 Eugene, OR 97440 Telephone: (541) 345 2376 Facsimile: (541) 345 2377 E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com drew@leimanlaw.com - and - Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq. Deborah R. Grayson, Esq. MEIZLISH & GRAYSON, INC. 830 Main Street, Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345 4700 Facsimile: (513) 345 4703 E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net drgrayson@fuse.net AES DRILLING: "Cole" Suit Seeks Certification of Engineers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned LARRY COLE and JEFFREY STONER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AES DRILLING FLUIDS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-02030 (S.D. Tex.), Cole and Stoner move the Court for a conditional certification of: "all current and former Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers working as employees or independent contractors for AES Drilling Fluids, LLC during the past three 3 years". Cole and Stoner previously worked for AES as Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers. Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers working for AES are paid a salary plus a day rate for each day worked in the field. Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers work at well sites where they reside on the days they are working. Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers are entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Cole and Stoner say AES's pay scheme denied Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers the overtime pay required by the FLSA. According to the complaint, the parties agree that all of AES's Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers are subject to the same pay provisions, and the same defenses with respect to their overtime claims. Additionally, Cole and Stoner seek an order from the Court adopting the following schedule: 1. 10 Days from order approving notice to potential class members. AES to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel in an Excel Spreadsheet the following information regarding all Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers who worked for AES (either as an employee or as an independent contractor) from July 8, 2013 to present: Last Name, First Name, Last Known Address, City, State, Zip Code, Last Known E-Mail Address, Last Known Telephone Number, Beginning Date of Employment, and Ending Date of Employment (if any). 2. Days from order approving notice to potential class members. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall send a copy of the Court approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email. 3. 60 Days from date notice is mailed to potential class members The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to return their signed Consent forms to Plaintiffs' counsel for filing with the Court. 4. 30 Days from Date Notice is Mailed to Potential Class Members. Plaintiffs' Counsel is authorized to mail a second identical copy of the notice/consent form to the putative class members reminding them of the deadline or the submission of the consent forms A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dw07ORIq The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Jones, Esq. Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 877 8788 Facsimile: 713 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com jjones@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P. 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751 0025 Facsimile: (713) 751 0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Lichtenthal" Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA LICHTENTHAL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AGILE THERAPEUTICS, INC., ALFRED ALTOMARI, and ELIZABETH GARNER, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00405 (D.N.J., January 20, 2017), alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, specifically, that its Twirla contraceptive patch would unlikely get approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The act allegedly violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. AGILE THERAPEUTICS, INC. develops women's healthcare products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 623-3000 Fax: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com AIR CANADA: Quebec Court Authorizes Ticket Glitch Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a British Columbia law firm says the Superior Court of Quebec has authorized a national class action lawsuit to begin against Air Canada over a glitch in ticket prices that occurred in August 2015. The airline's website had offered a package of 10 flights within Western Canada for a total cost of $800 before taxes. Two Calgary men quickly snapped up the promotion and received confirmation numbers and receipts. But when they tried to book a trip, they couldn't find their purchases on their Air Canada accounts. When they called the airline to inquire, they were told the package deal was supposed to be priced at $8,000. Air Canada later issued a statement saying a "computer loading error" resulted in a temporary mispricing that offered the 10-flight package at $800 instead of the correct price of $8,000. The airline said it had apologized to affected travellers and would provide a refund and honour any bookings made before the error was caught. Air Canada said it was not able to comment on the class action certification as the matter is before the courts. Burnaby, B.C.-based Evolink Law Group says the class action seeks compensatory damages and-or punitive damages from Air Canada. ARISE VIRTUAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Sara L. Ellis entered an order in the lawsuit styled Barry Carter, the Plaintiff, v. Arise Virtual Solutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06262 (N.D. Ill.), denying a motion to certify class and motion to compel without prejudice. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 2, 2017, another status hearing is set on April 18, 2017 at 9:30 AM. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jj1xEdry ARS NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in "McGee" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL MCGEE, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, the Plaintiff, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00045-TLS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), Mr. McGee asks the Court to enter an order determining that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action may proceed as a class action. The class is defined as: "all (a) individuals in one of the applicable jurisdictions (b) to whom a letter was sent on behalf of ARS National Services, Inc., to collect a debt, (c) which debt was an auto retail installment contract or lease debt on which the last payment or activity had occurred more than four years prior to the letter, (d) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action. The applicable jurisdictions are the District of Columbia and the 40 states other than Louisiana, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. The Plaintiff also asks the Court that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. ARS have been attempting to collect from plaintiff an alleged debt consisting of an alleged deficiency on a motorcycle retail installment sales contract incurred for personal, family or household purposes and not for business purposes. On December 7, 2016, ARS sent plaintiff the form letter offering a settlement of the debt. The Plaintiff had defaulted on the contract no later than 2011, as a result of becoming disabled. The motorcycle was repossessed and sold prior to February 1, 2012. No payments were made after that date. The debt went into default more than 4 years prior to December 7, 2016. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hlSPPqtY The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C. 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 BENORE LOGISTIC: "Perkins" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled STEPHANIE PERKINS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BENORE LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-13717-AJT-DRG (E.D. Mich.), Plaintiffs move the Court for an order allowing the case to proceed as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action on behalf of the following similarly-situated Benore Logistic employees: "Transportation Coordinators employed by Benore Logistic at any point since October 20, 2013 who were not paid overtime wages for hours they worked more than 40 in a workweek". The Plaintiffs also move for an order 1. authorizing Plaintiffs to issue the notice of opportunity to join this overtime lawsuit against Benore Logistic along with the Consent to Sue form to the FLSA Collective Members by mail and e-mail and issue a reminder postcard to those collective members that have not responded within 30 days; 2. requiring Benore Logistic to provide Plaintiffs with the Collective Members names, the last known addresses, employee identification numbers, and email addresses in electronic manipulable format; and 3. requiring Benore Logistic to provide Plaintiffs with telephone numbers, dates of birth, and partial social security numbers of the Collective Members whose Notices are returned without a forwarding address. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bZPoNIQT The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 9 Paradies Lane New Paltz, NY 12561 Telephone: (845) 255 9370 E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com BT GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Feb. 1 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of BT Group plc ("BT Group" or the "Company") (NYSE:BT) securities during the period between May 10, 2013 and January 23, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Hollister v. BT Group plc, et al., No. 17- cv-00777. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 27, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or Mario Alba Jr. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/btgroup/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges BT Group and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BT Group provides telecommunications services to its customers worldwide. The Company is headquartered in London, England. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding BT Group's business and prospects, including: (i) that the Company's Italian business, which is a part of BT Group's Global Services division, was overstating earnings over a number of years; (ii) that the Company was engaging in improper accounting practices, which included a complex set of improper sales, purchase, factoring and leasing transactions; (iii) that BT Group's internal controls were so materially inadequate that its reported results were not reliable; and (iv) that due to the foregoing, defendants were forced to take a write down of approximately GBP530 million and lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about BT Group's then-current business and future financial prospects. On October 27, 2016, BT Group issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fiscal second quarter, the period ending September 30, 2016. Moreover, the Company announced that BT Group would have to take a write down of approximately GBP145 million due to "certain historical accounting errors" at its BT Italia division. On January 24, 2017, the Company issued a press release announcing an update of its investigation into BT's Italian business and its revised outlook. According to the press release, the Company stated that it now expected to take a write down of approximately GBP530 million -- almost four times the original amount the Company estimated a few months prior. In reaction to this, and other related announcements, the price of BT Group American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell 21%, to close at $19.38 per ADR, on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of BT Group securities during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller is a law firm advising U.S. and international institutional investors in securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first in both total amount recovered for investors and number of securities class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report for the last two years. CANADA: Merchant Law Group Pursues Sixties Scoop Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Merchant, Q.C. stated: "[Wednes]day's announcement by Minister Carolyn Bennett (announcing the establishment of formal negotiations between the Government and Sixties Scoop survivors) is a significant first step in addressing the legacy of the Sixties Scoop Aboriginal Adoption program, which was a devastating program that has visited long-term pain and suffering upon many Indigenous families. The struggles and hardship which many 60s Scoop survivors are still dealing with in their daily lives, make evident the profound impact with this forced adoption program had on the Indigenous Canadians who were cruelly taken away as young children and improperly placed for adoption against the will of their parents. Merchant Law Group has been pursuing Sixties Scoop litigation on behalf of adoption survivors for the past 8 years and we welcome this announcement aimed at bringing closure for survivors of this forced adoption program." "Merchant Law Group is pursuing Sixties Scoop class action litigation on behalf of survivors across Canada and is prosecuting Sixties Scoop lawsuits before the Courts in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the Federal Court of Canada." "Adoption survivors have contacted our law firm not just from all over North America but even Europe. Thousands of indigenous children taken away from their homes and culture found themselves adopted out mainly in Canada but also to the United States, and in some instances found themselves in Europe or elsewhere." Any Sixties Scoop Survivors interested in more information concerning the class action litigation regarding the government's "Adopt Indian Metis program" which saw First Nations, M‚tis and other aboriginal children placed in forced adoption may provide their contact information at http://www.merchantlaw.com/class- actions/current-class-actions/indian-metis-scoop-class-action Merchant Law Group LLP operates ten law offices across Canada and is well known for pursuing class action lawsuits in Canada. COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Court Conditionally Certifies Jailors Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Susan O. Hickey entered an order in the lawsuit entitled MICHELLE RASBERRY, individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA COUNTY, ARKANSAS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01074-SOH (W.D. Ark.), granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, approval and distribution of notice, and disclosure of contact information as follows: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all salaried jailors (or similar positions) employed by Defendant Columbia County, Arkansas who worked in the State of Arkansas at the Columbia County Jail at any time after August 04, 2013"; 2. approving the proposed Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit form, once edited to comply with this Order. Plaintiff shall replace the statement "If the case is not settled between the parties, a trial will be held at the United States District Court. . . " with "If the case is not dismissed, settled, or decided on the merits prior to the trial date, a trial will be held at the United States District Court. . . ""; 3. approving the proposed Consent to Join Collective Action form and Plaintiff's request to include copies of the Complaint and Answer in the notice packet; 4. approving the Second Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit postcard and approves sending the postcard to any class member who has not responded within 30 days of the mailing of the written notice; 5. approving the use of e-mail to provide notice to potential plaintiffs as well as the proposed language of the notice e-mail; 6. approving the utilization of www.rightsignature.com as a means for opt-in plaintiffs to join the lawsuit; 7. approving sending un-responsive potential class members a follow-up e-mail 30 days after the initial notice e-mail was sent; 8. directing Defendant to produce the full name, date of birth, dates of employment, last known home address, and personal and business e-mail address of any individual who meets the class definition. The list must be produced in a usable electronic format but Defendant need not convert the list to Plaintiffs' preferred format. Defendant shall deliver this information to Plaintiff's counsel within 14 days of the entry of this Order, with the understanding that Plaintiff's counsel is to treat this information as confidential and is not to disclose it to third parties. The Court will not require Defendant to provide Plaintiff with partial social security numbers of potential opt-in plaintiffs; and 9. directing Plaintiff to have 90 days from the date Defendant delivers the requisite contact information in which to distribute the notice and consent documents and to file signed consent forms of opt-in plaintiffs with the Court. Furthermore, Plaintiff is directed to correct the dates in the various notice and consent documents to reflect the current year, 2017. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DoahMYK4 COLONIAL NURSING: "Jones" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned ALMA JONES VERSUS COLONIAL NURSING HOME, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00090 (W.D. La., January 20, 2017), asserts, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, that Colonial willfully violated the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of their lawful wages and overtime pay at the proper rate. Plaintiff worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant for Colonial. Colonial Nursing Home Inc. is a business under the category Convalescent Home With Continuous Nursing Care. The Plaintiff is represented by: Somer G. Brown, Esq. COX, COX, FILO, CAMEL & WILSON, LLC 723 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Phone: 337-436-6611 Fax: 337-436-9541 Email: somer.brown@coxcoxfilo.com COVO TRATTORIA: Faces "Padilla" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID PADILLA, JOANNY GARCIA, JOSE LOPEZ TAVAREZ, RUBEN DARIO SANCHEZ JIMENEZ, and VLADIMIR ESTRELLA POLANCO individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against 701 W. 135TH CAFE INC. (d/b/a COVO TRATTORIA), ANTONIO LOBRUTTO, ARSENIO ROSAS AND LUCAS VALERIANI, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00437 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2017), was brought to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of Labor. Plaintiffs worked as waiters, busboys and food runners. Covo Trattoria was an Italian restaurant owned by Antonio Lobrutto, Arsenio Rosas and Lucas Valeriani. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 DAVITA INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Saxena White P.A. on Feb. 1 disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against DaVita Inc. ("DaVita" or the "Company") (DVA) on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company during the period between August 5, 2015 and October 21, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). DaVita provides kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure or end-stage renal disease. The Company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers, and provides acute inpatient dialysis services in approximately 900 hospitals and related laboratory services in the United States. DaVita made contributions to a purported charitable foundation called the American Kidney Fund ("AKF"), a group that provides financial assistance toward patients' health insurance premiums. The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its senior executives purposefully steered patients into unnecessary insurance plans in order to maximize profits; (2) the Company was using AKF as a vehicle to facilitate these improper practices; (3) as a result, DaVita's revenues and profits were illegally obtained; (4) in turn, DaVita lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about DaVita's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action at www.saxenawhite.com. If you purchased DaVita stock between August 5, 2015 and October 21, 2016, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com) at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests. If you purchased DaVita common stock during the Class Period of August 5, 2015 and October 21, 2016, and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court by no later than April 3, 2017. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Saxena White P.A., with offices located in White Plains, New York and Boca Raton, Florida, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. DELAWARE: "Noble" Lawsuit Dismissed ----------------------------------- In the case, THOMAS E. NOBLE, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE EDWARD R. BECKER, et al. Defendants. THOMAS E. NOBLE, Petitioner, v. JOHN SEBASTIAN, Respondent. THOMAS E. NOBLE, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF DELAWARE and GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL, Defendants, Civ. Nos. 03-906- SLR, 16-406-SLR, 16-407-SLR (D. Del.), District Judge Sue L. Robinson denied the Plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus. The Plaintiff commenced a purported class action challenging Delaware's criminal statutes concerning child pornography and the State's policing and enforcement of those laws as a violation of his and others' civil rights. The Court dismissed the complaint as a clear violation of the filing injunction, and ordered the clerk to close the case and return Noble's filing fee, hence, the Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to support his burden to demonstrate that the court engaged in an unlawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or failed to exercise its authority when it was its duty to do so. Therefore, the Court ruled that the mandamus relief is not warranted. A copy of the Court's Memorandum dated January 23, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/260yyp from Leagle.com. DONALD TRUMP: Broad Suit Challenges Immigration Order ----------------------------------------------------- Josh Gerstein at Politico reports a California attorney filed a federal lawsuit on January 28 broadly challenging President Donald Trump's new executive order limiting immigration from Muslim- majority countries in order to combat terrorism. The suit, filed on January 28 afternoon in U.S. District Court for Northern California, argues that the order intrudes on Congress' legislative authority and violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion. "It's a legislative function, so that violates separation of power and it does not meet any of the well-recognized exceptions, so we're asking to enjoin it or repeal it," said Andrew Shalaby, an attorney with East Bay Law in Albany, Calif., near Oakland. The order Trump signed restricts citizen of seven majority-Muslim countries from traveling to the U.S., implements new procedures for green-card holders from those countries and suspends admission of refugees to the U.S. The suit does not name any specific plaintiffs, but was filed on behalf of the American public generally and the people of California. Shalaby said he believes the case can be pursued under a California law allowing private individuals to sue on behalf of the public, but it's not clear that will allow the suit to proceed in federal court. Shalaby said he's confident he can find individual plaintiffs to add to the suit, if a judge rules that is necessary. "I don't think we have a standing problem. If we do, we have a solution to it," he said. Shalaby said he filed the case because he considered it important to go after the Trump order right away. "A lot of people in my circles encouraged me to file it," he said. "We wanted to act on it immediately." A separate class-action federal lawsuit challenging Trump's order was filed early On January 28 in New York on behalf of two Iraqi men who had valid visas but were detained on arrival at JFK Airport Friday. One of the men was released On January 28. The New York case is focused on the impact of the executive order on immigrants who have arrived in the U.S. and are in detention or face possible expulsion in connection with Trump's order. The class action suit, brought in Brooklyn, has the backing of several major immigrant rights organizations, including the International Refugee Assistance Project, the National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union and a legal clinic at Yale Law School. A total of 18 attorneys were listed on legal papers filed in the case, along with seven law-student interns. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has also announced plans to file another lawsuit against Trump's order. The cases all face uphill battles in court because most foreigners outside the U.S. have few rights under U.S. law. Cases involving impacts that the Trump order may have on foreign nationals who are U.S. permanent residents (also known as green card holders) could get more traction because they're usually considered to have more legal rights. U.S. citizens may also have success in challenging situations where their foreign spouses or family members appear to be barred from entry into the country. However, parts of the order seem to be worded to try to undercut legal challenges. For example, part of the order effectively giving priority to Christians in the refugee program refers to cases where "the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality." In addition, most of the changes in the order are framed as temporary suspensions or reviews -- the kinds of measures courts rarely overturn particularly when the executive branch claims national security concerns are at stake. DUKE ENERGY: Tells Coal Ash Pit Neighbors to Waive Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Emery P. Dalesio, writing for The Associated Press, reports that neighbors living near Duke Energy Corp's coal ash pits in North Carolina are being told they have to give up the option of suing over any future water problems if they want extra compensation from the utility. The country's largest electric company sent out letters to about 1,000 homeowners living near 13 of the company's coal-burning power plants spread across North Carolina. In them, the utility said it will require the waiver to release the company from "any claims for further compensation or recovery from Duke Energy" related to alleged groundwater pollution or unsatisfactory municipal water connections. Duke Energy said its coal-ash pits are not to blame for any contaminants detected in groundwater. The company is offering a $5,000 "goodwill" payment to neighbors "to support your transition to a new water supply," the letters said. The company was required by a state law passed last year to install by October 2018 either new municipal water lines or a household water treatment system to homes within a half mile of coal ash sites. Feb. 2 marked three years since liquefied coal ash containing arsenic, lead, mercury and other heavy metals spilled from a Duke Energy plant into the Dan River along the Virginia line. The spill threw a spotlight on coal ash, a waste byproduct left after decades of burning coal for electricity. Neighbors agreeing to forego future litigation are being offered the $5,000 payment and one-time payments to cover about 25 years of water bills resulting from new public water connections. Some lump-sum payments for water bills may be as high as $22,000, the company has said. Duke Energy said it also will make up for lost property values by coal-ash neighbors who sell their home before October 2019 and get less than fair market value. That property compensation plan is not contingent on neighbors signing the waiver, company spokesman Jeff Brooks wrote in an email. In 2015, state scientists warned more than 300 coal-ash neighbors that their well water contained risky levels of a cancer-causing chemical. Top officials of Gov. Pat McCrory's administration last year reversed that advisory, saying the previous warning used a too-cautious health standard. The financial offers are available to coal-ash neighbors whether or not they are represented by attorneys, Brooks said. Law firms based in Raleigh and Salisbury in the state, and in Dallas, Texas, said they represent hundreds of coal-ash neighbors who are concerned about the company's compensation. No related lawsuits have been filed, attorney Bryan Brice said on Feb. 2. The waiver would include health concerns that may appear in the future, raising questions since Duke Energy denies that its ash is the cause of well-water contamination, he said. "Why are you demanding a full release when you state that Duke did not cause any groundwater or related problems?" Mr. Brice said. The utility delivers electricity to about 7.4 million customers in the Carolinas, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Florida. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Bid to Certify Madden NFL Nationwide Class Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Richard Seeborg entered order in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:10-cv-03328-RS (N.D. Cal.), denying Plaintiff's motion for certification of a nationwide class of: "former NFL players that includes individuals residing in all or nearly all of the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and other places around the world". The Court said, "It might very well be that a former player living in some state that does not recognize a right of publicity would be entitled to sue in California, under California law, for a misappropriation of his likeness in products sold in California. Plaintiffs, however, are not seeking a nationwide class with recovery that is limited to California sales of Madden NFL, so that possibility does not assist them. Accordingly, EA has met its burden to show that there is a true conflict between California law and that of at least many of the other states that are implicated by plaintiffs' claims, and that California's interest is not superior to the interests of those states. As in Lightbourne, a nationwide class may not be certified under California's right of publicity statute on the facts of this case. The ruling is without prejudice to plaintiffs seeking leave to amend and/or presenting a renewed motion with a narrower class and/or subclasses. The parties shall appear for a further case management conference on March 2, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., with a joint case management conference statement to be filed one week in advance". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mYtHEP9M FACEBOOK INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss TCPA Violation Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Allison Grande at Law360 reports that a California federal judge on January 27 refused to nix a putative class action accusing Facebook of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text message reminders about friends' birthdays, ruling that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged the use of an autodialer and that the statute passed constitutional muster. In denying Facebook's motion to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim, U.S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson rejected the social media giant's arguments that plaintiff Colin R. Brickman had failed to prove that the offending text message was sent using an automated telephone dialing system that had the capacity to store and dial numbers randomly or sequentially, as required to assert a valid claim under the TCPA, and that the statute violated the First Amendment. Although Judge Henderson called the question of whether Brickman had alleged enough to support a TCPA claim against Facebook a close call, he concluded that, in viewing Brickman's allegations in a light most favorable to him, the plaintiff had alleged more than a conclusory allegation that Facebook used an ATDS to send out text messages by detailing exactly how Facebook's software determines who to text, how it gathers the contact information needed to send out text, how it creates text messages and how it sends them out, all without human intervention. "While Facebook's birthday announcement texts do suggest direct targeting of Brickman, based on the facts alleged, it is plausible that Facebook could have used an ATDS to send out the targeted messages," the judge ruled. "This is especially true in a situation like this where Brickman alleged Facebook possessed the particular information and technology needed to craft such targeted messages (i.e., cell phone numbers, users' birthday, friendship connections, etc.)." The judge also rejected Facebook's argument that the TCPA claim launched by Brickman in February should fail because it was triggered by human intervention, namely Brickman's decision to sign up for Facebook, link his cellphone number to his profile, and connect with the friend who decided to publicly share the birthday information that was shared with Brickman in the single alert he received encouraging him to wish that friend a happy birthday. "The court finds that Brickman's and [his friend's] actions were not the impetus for Facebook sending the birthday announcement text," Judge Henderson ruled. "This is particularly true where Brickman alleges he gave Facebook his cellphone number but that his account settings gave Facebook 'unambiguous notice' that it did not have consent to send him text messages." When it came to the disputed issue of consent -- which Facebook argues Brickman expressly provided and the plaintiff contends he did not -- Judge Henderson ruled that he did not need to address the issue in his ruling because for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, "the court must accept all material allegations of fact as true and construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the non-moving party." "Accordingly, while the issue may be disputed at a later time, the court shall accept as true Brickman's allegations that he did not provide consent to receive text messages from Facebook," the judge ruled. Moving to question of whether the TCPA is unconstitutional -- an argument which drew the U.S. government into the dispute for the purpose of defending the constitutionality of the statute -- Judge Henderson concluded that the provisions exempting calls made for emergency purposes and to collect a debt owed or guaranteed by the government from the statute's restrictions withstood strict scrutiny. Facebook had argued that the TCPA could not survive strict scrutiny because the challenged provisions were both underinclusive and overinclusive, and there were less restrictive means for achieving the government's compelling interest in promoting residential privacy. But Judge Henderson concluded that neither exemption allows for the "unlimited proliferation" of any type of call, that Facebook has provided no plausible alternatives that would be less restrictive and at least as effective in protecting privacy as the TCPA, and that the statute does not restrict individuals from receiving any content they want to receive since they can remove any prohibitions by providing express consent. "If individuals want to receive speech from Facebook that facilitates social connections, they are not prohibited from doing so," Judge Henderson ruled. Patrick J. Perotti of Dworken & Bernstein Co. LPA, who represents Brickman, told Law360 that his side was pleased with the ruling, and stressed the importance of the case in ensuring that one of the nation's leading electronic communications providers is playing by the rules. "When one of the companies that is the heart and soul of how people talk to each other through electronic communciations begins to abuse these rules, that's exactly what Congress was trying to protect in enacting statutes like the TCPA," Perotti said. "We're shocked that Facebook is fighting this rather than doing the right thing and changing its practices." Perotti added that his side was looking forward to moving ahead with the dispute, which will now turn to the issue of the plaintiff learning from Facebook how many users have been impacted by the allegedly unlawful texting practice, a universe of individuals that Dworkin said he expects will number in the hundreds of thousands or millions. A representative for Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Brickman is represented by Patrick J. Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- and Frank A. Bartela -- fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- of Dworken & Bernstein Co. LPA, and Kristen Law Sagafi -- ksagafi@tzlegal.com -- Martin D. Quinones -- mquinones@tzlegal.com -- and Hassan A. Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- of Tycko & Zavareei LLP. Facebook is represented by Andrew B. Clubok -- Andrew.Clubok@kirkland.com --, Susan E. Engel -- Susan.Engel@kirkland.com -- , Devin S. Anderson -- Devin.Anderson@kirkland.com -- and Elizabeth L. Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The case is Colin R. Brickman v. Facebook Inc., case number 3:16- cv-00751, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: "Magee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Magee, Samantha Bailey and Robert Bloominger Jr., individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Francesca's Holdings Corp. and Francesca's Collections, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00565-RBK-JS (D.N.J., January 27, 2017), seeks to recover current and former store managers' unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate more than 600 specialty retail stores or boutiques nationwide, offering apparel, jewelry, accessories and gifts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com Cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com Droth@hgrlawyers.com GAP INC: Hit with TCPA Suit Over Autodialed Calls ------------------------------------------------- Shayna Posses at Law360 reports that a consumer hit Gap Inc. with a proposed class action in New York federal court on January 26, alleging that the retailer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by continually autodialing his cellphone, even after he explained that the company had the wrong number. Roy Campbell's complaint alleges that the retailer starts autodialing consumers when they fall behind on payments for their Gap-brand credit cards, sometimes reaching numbers no longer held by its customers but refusing to stop calling. "Gap fails to heed these consumers' requests that it cease placing calls to their cellular telephones," Campbell said. "Gap's continued calls cause consumers great inconvenience and invasion of privacy, in violation of the TCPA." In the last four years, Gap started placing automated calls to Campbell's cellphone from a number associated with Gap Inc. Credit Services, he contends. When he answered the phone, he heard a prerecorded message indicating that the call was from the retailer regarding the collection of a debt, with no option to speak to a human representative, the suit says. If Campbell didn't answer, Gap left prerecorded messages on his voicemail, saying that the call was intended for a person named Charmaine Thomas, someone Campbell doesn't know, according to the complaint. Ultimately, the suit says, the consumer called Gap back and spoke to a live representative, explaining that they had the wrong number and asking to be put on the "do not call" list. Although the representative said Gap would stop calling Campbell, that wasn't the case, the complaint alleges. The retailer continued to place automated calls to his phone, even though Campbell doesn't owe Gap any money and never gave the company his cellphone number nor permission to autodial it, constituting willful violations of the TCPA, the complaint alleges. Not only was he annoyed, frustrated and inconvenienced, he also had to pay for the calls, Campbell says. He seeks to represent all people in the United States who received autodialed, nonemergency calls from Gap within four years of the complaint after informing the retailer that the call was to a wrong number. Campbell seeks statutory damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. Gap joins a growing number of retailers defending TCPA actions in recent years, including Lands' End, which was hit with a proposed class action earlier this month over allegedly unsolicited fax ads, and American Eagle, which agreed to pay $14.5 million in December to resolve claims over text message blasts, according to court filings. Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return request for comment on Friday. Campbell is represented by Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC. Counsel information for Gap wasn't immediately available on Friday. The suit is Roy Campbell et al. v. Gap Inc., suit number 1:17-cv- 00081, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. GIGAMON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gigamon Inc., Paul A. Hooper, Michael J. Burns, and Rex S. Jackson, Case No. 5:17-cv-00434-EJD (N.D. Cal., January 27, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint asserts that by failing to disclose that Gigamon was experiencing reduced product bookings in its North America West region, that several of the Company's significant customers were deferring purchasing decisions into 2017, and that the Company failed to properly include these trends in its financial guidance, the Defendants' statements about Gigamon's business, operations, and prospects, including statements about its revenue guidance, were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. Gigamon Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa Clara, California that develops solutions that deliver pervasive and dynamic intelligent visibility and control of traffic across networks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com GIGAMON INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of persons and entities that acquired Gigamon Inc. securities between October 27, 2016 and January 17, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice, to serve as lead plaintiff. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. On January 17, 2017, the Company issued a press release entitled "Gigamon Announces Preliminary Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2016 Results." Therein, the Company disclosed preliminary fourth quarter 2016 revenue of "$84.5 million to $85.0 million, compared to the company's prior guidance of $91 million to $93 million." The press release also quoted Defendant Paul Hooper as stating "fourth quarter revenue was below our prior guidance" and that "[f]ourth quarter revenue fell short primarily due to lower than expected product bookings in our North America West region, as several significant existing customer accounts deferred purchasing decisions into 2017." On this news, the price of Gigamon common stock fell $12.65 per share, or 28.7%, to close at $31.40 per share on January 18, 2017, thereby injuring investors. The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Gigamon was experiencing reduced product bookings in its North America West region; (2) that several of the Company's significant customers were deferring purchasing decisions into 2017; (3) that the Company failed to properly include these trends in its financial guidance; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Gigamon's business, operations, and prospects, including statements about its revenue guidance, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. GKNY1 INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit Seeking to Recoup Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- MANOLO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against GKNY1 INC. (d/b/a GLOBAL KITCHEN) and KWONIK CHO, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00447-PKC (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2017), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and "overtime wage order" and the "spread of hours" order of the New York Commissioner of Labor. Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker. Global Kitchen is a fast food restaurant owned by Kwonik Cho. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Rejects Settlement of "Lengel" FCRA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kathryn H. Vratil declined to grant preliminary approval to the settlement agreement in the case captioned EMERALD LENGEL, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOMEADVISOR, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-2198-KHV (D. Kan.) Emerald Lengel brought a putative class action on behalf of all persons who applied for employment with HomeAdvisor, Inc., between January 13, 2013 and June 10, 2015. The plaintiffs claimed that HomeAdvisor violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that HomeAdvisor failed to provide job applicants a stand-alone disclosure stating that it would obtain a consumer report (background check) for employment purposes. The plaintiffs also alleged that these violations were willful, and thus triggered statutory penalties under 15 U.S.C. section 1681n(a)(1)(A). On November 18, 2015, the plaintiffs sought: (1) preliminary certification of the proposed settlement class; (2) preliminary settlement approval; (3) appointment of Lengel as representative of the settlement class; (4) appointment of Lengel's attorneys as class counsel; and (5) approval of the proposed class notice. HomeAdvisor did not oppose the motion. The settlement class includes approximately 1,650 persons. Under the settlement agreement, HomeAdvisor will establish a $190,000 settlement fund to compensate settlement class members and pay any amounts which the Court approves for attorneys' fees, expenses and a class representative service award. The settlement agreement provides that in addition to the $190,000 fund, HomeAdvisor will pay all administrative costs of settlement, including the cost of disseminating notice and distributing settlement payments. In exchange for this monetary payment, class members will release all claims "arising out of or relating to the facts alleged in the complaint including but not limited to any and all claims under the FCRA, including specifically 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A), and any parallel or similar state or common-law claims." Judge Vratil preliminarily certified the following settlement class: "All applicants for employment with HomeAdvisor about whom HomeAdvisor procured a consumer report for employment purposes at any time from January 13, 2013 through June 10, 2015, excluding any individuals who timely file a valid written notice of intent to opt out of the Settlement." Judge Vratil also appointed Lengel as class representative for the settlement class, and Kai H. Richter of Nichols Kaster, PLLP and Michael F. Brady and Mark Kistler of Brady & Associates as class counsel for the settlement class. Judge Vratil, however, did not preliminarily approve the settlement agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate. The judge found that although most of the other terms of the settlement appear fair and reasonable, the settlement is unclear on one point regarding the scope of the release and on two points related to payment to class members. Judge Vratil found that the broad release of claims relating to the facts alleged in the complaint and not limited to claims under the FCRA potentially covers a range of employment claims far broader than the FCRA claims in the complaint. Judge Vratil also noted two issues in regard to provisions for payments to class members: -- The agreement provides that HomeAdvisor will mail each settlement class member a check for the pro-rata share of the net settlement fund. Presumably HomeAdvisor will not mail checks to settlement class members for whom it has no good address, but the settlement agreement does not spell out what happens to those class members' share of the net settlement fund. -- The settlement agreement does not contain a provision for re-distributing to class members the funds from checks which are not cashed within 60 days. A full-text copy of Judge Vratil's January 25, 2017 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/N4kcyN from Leagle.com. Emerald Lengel, Plaintiff, represented by Kai H. Richter -- krichter@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, Mark A. Kistler -- mkistler@mbradylaw.com -- Brady & Associates Law Office & Michael F. Brady -- brady@mbradylaw.com -- Brady & Associates Law Office. HomeAdvisor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander C. Clayden -- aclayden@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP, pro hac vice, Mark A. Samsel -- msamsel@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Stephen J. Horace -- shorace@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP, pro hac vice. HONDA: Hit With TCPA Class Action Over Airbag Safety Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- Walter Olson at Overlawyered reports Honda called car owners to warn about dangerous Takata airbags. Its reward was to get sued by a class action lawyer over unsolicited calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). ILLUMINA INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Illumina, Inc. (NASDAQ: ILMN) from July 26, 2016, and October 10, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Illumina investors under the federal securities laws. According to the lawsuit, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects, including overstating demand for its high throughput sequencing instruments. Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing a large decline in high throughput sequencing instrument sales; (2) that the decline was negatively impacting the Company's revenue; (3) that the Company lacked visibility into trends that could have a substantial impact on the Company's financial results; (4) that, as such, the Company's revenue guidance was unreliable and overstated; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Illumina's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 14, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights or interests, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) by email or by phone at 619-814-4471. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. About Johnson & Weaver, LLP: Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonandweaver.com INTEGRATED TECH: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled RAIDEL GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTEGRATED TECH GROUP, LLC COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25213-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify four classes: Class I - Florida FMWA Class: "all persons employed in Florida by INTEGRATED TECH GROUP, LLC, as residential cable residential cable installers, who were not paid Florida's minimum wage for all hours worked within the applicable statute of limitations"; Class II - Florida Section 24 Class: "all persons employed in Florida by INTEGRATED TECH GROUP, LLC, as residential cable residential cable installers, who were not paid Florida's minimum wage for all hours worked within the applicable statute of limitations; Class III - Florida FDUPTA Class: "all persons employed in Florida by INTEGRATED TECH GROUP, LLC, as residential cable residential cable installers who were subjected to Defendants' illegal pay scheme via ITG's piece-rate compensation system within the applicable statute of limitations; and Class IV - National Unjust Enrichment Class: "all persons employed in the United States by INTEGRATED TECH GROUP, LLC, as cable residential cable installers who were subjected to Defendants' illegal pay scheme via ITG's piece- rate compensation system within the applicable statute of limitations". The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Raidel Gomez as Class Representative; appoint undersigned counsel as class counsel; and allow him to notify the proposed putative class members via Court-approved notice. According to its website, ITG is a "national provider of fulfillment, construction and project management services to the cable and telecommunications industries". It purports to "manage permanently outsourced operational activities in specific markets, including new customer installations, upgrades, service calls, dispatch and warehousing." It operates nationally, including in Florida, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Texas, among other states. ITG allegedly failed to honor its payment obligations and involved the Comcast defendants in its scheme. Instead, ITG utilized a complicated pay structure that, at first glance, appears to comport with its obligations to pay the putative class members a piece-rate, plus bonuses, and overtime. However, in reality ITG set up an intricate methodology making it appear as if these separate earnings had all been paid, including on the pay stubs provided by Defendant, when, in reality, Plaintiffs received in many cases less than minimum wage. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xlo0HZQy The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Laura E. Prather, Esq. Jason D. Berkowitz, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Wells Fargo Center 100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 3360 INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Bid to Amend Securities Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: INTUITIVE SURGICAL SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 5:13-cv-01920-EJD (N.D Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint and denied the defendants' motion to strike unsigned pleadings. Lead plaintiffs Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii and Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund alleged that institutional defendant Intuitive Surgical, Inc. and individual executive defendants Gary S. Guthart, Marshall L. Mohr, and Lonnie M. Smith made numerous false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the safety and regulatory compliance of its flagship product, the da Vinci surgical robot system. The plaintiffs believe such non-disclosure constitutes securities fraud since it allegedly caused the value of Intuitive stock to plummet once the true information was revealed, thereby damaging investors. The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint after the court-imposed deadline for amendments to the pleadings expired. The plaintiffs argued they acted diligently under the circumstances. The plaintiffs pointed out that the allegations they seek to add to the complaint were revealed through the extensive discovery process, which by their account generated nearly 70,000 of pages of documents and encompassed 14 separate fact depositions, as well as multiple rounds of interrogatories and requests for admission and five separate discovery disputes. Judge Davila noted that the plaintiffs' motion was filed within weeks of the final document production and final deposition identified by the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, the judge agreed that the plaintiff's representation constitutes good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. The judge found that the plaintiffs could not have otherwise met the scheduling order's amendment deadline to seek the addition of information learned through discovery since that process was still ongoing at the time. Judge Davila also found that the amendments that the plaintiffs proposed would not substantially alter the action or require the defendants to undertake an entirely new course of discovery. Instead, the judge found that the amendments all relate to facts that were revealed through the discovery process, and would remove the same withdrawn factual allegations that the defendants cited as a basis for their opposition. Judge Davila therefore found that any prejudice to the defendants is insignificant. Judge Davila also noted that nothing in the current pleadings suggests that the plaintiffs have acted with a dilatory motive, and permitting leave to file an amended complaint will not delay the presently unscheduled trial of the action or affect scheduling deadlines in any significant way. Furthermore, Judge Davila did not share the defendants' opinion that the proposed amendments are made in bad faith. The judge did not find that motivation constitutes "strong evidence" of bad faith when the result of an amendment may actually be beneficial to clarifying the allegations at issue. Judge Davila denied the defendants' motion to strike as the judge did not find that the plaintiffs' conduct violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in a manner that justifies the relief requested. A full-text copy of Judge Davila's January 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/s9ZhLo from Leagle.com. Spencer Abrams, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Charles Leahy -- artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & dowd LLP, Mary K. Blasy -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, Lead, Plaintiff, represented by Alec T. Coquin -- acoquin@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Carol C. Villegas -- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Christine M. Fox -- cfox@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Eric J. Belfi -- ebelfi@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, , Goodkind Labation Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, Mark S. Arisohn - - marisohn@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Plasse -- mstocker@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Samuel De Villiers, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Serena Hallowell -- shallowell@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Theodore J. Hawkins -- thawkins@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ekaterini Maria Polychronopoulos, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Ivo Michael Labar -- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe -- wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Susannah Ruth Conn, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP & Yah E. Demann -- ydemann@gerardfoxlaw.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP. Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Carol C. Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael Walter Stocker, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Serena Hallowell, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Theodore J. Hawkins, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Susannah Ruth Conn, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP & Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Rae Crutchfield, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander Barnes Dryer, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker & Van Nest LLP, John Watkins Keker, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Kate Ellis Lazarus, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Philip James Tassin, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker and Van Nest LLP & Laurie Carr Mims, Keker & Van Nest, LLP. Lonnie Smith, Gary Guthart, Defendants, represented by Alexander Barnes Dryer, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker & Van Nest LLP, John Watkins Keker, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Philip James Tassin, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker and Van Nest LLP & Laurie Carr Mims, Keker & Van Nest, LLP. Salvatore J. Brogna, Augusto V. Castello, Jerome McNamara, Mark J. Meltzer, Colin Morales, David Rosa, Defendants, represented by Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Philip James Tassin, Keker and Van Nest LLP & Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker and Van Nest LLP. Marshall L. Mohr, Defendant, represented by Alexander Barnes Dryer, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker & Van Nest LLP, John Watkins Keker, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Philip James Tassin, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Kate Ellis Lazarus, Keker and Van Nest LLP & Laurie Carr Mims, Keker & Van Nest, LLP. Darian Adel, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Averts Product Liability Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Brad Perriello, writing for MassDevice, reports that Intuitive Surgical dodged a class-action product liability lawsuit on Jan. 31 when a federal judge in Georgia dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiffs Gabriel Fernando Nassar Cure and Dr. Alan Kozarsky sued Intuitive in June 2016 on behalf of all mitral valve surgery patients treated using the company's da Vinci robot-assisted surgery platform over the past 2 years. Mr. Cure and Dr. Kozarsky alleged that the da Vinci devices used in their procedures at Atlanta's St. Joseph's Hospital left tiny metallic particles behind that eventually found their way to their brains. Intuitive filed a series of motions to dismiss the case and block its certification as a class action. On Jan. 31 Judge Orinda Evans of the U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia granted 1 of the motions to dismiss, ruling the others moot based on that decision. Judge Evans found that "plaintiff s cannot claim damages for emotional distress without evidence of a physical injury." "Plaintiffs allege negligence as to '1 or more instruments that would ultimately be used in mitral valve repair surgeries,' but they apparently do not know which instrument caused their injury because they fail to specify 1. They allege that 1 of these instruments was 'defective in design and unreasonably dangerous' and had 'an unreasonably dangerous manufacturing defect,' but they offer no evidence of the specific defect at issue other than the metallic microemboli that have apparently caused no physical injury. Plaintiff s also impute knowledge -- 'defendants knew or had reason to know the instrument was defective and unsafe for use in patients' -- but offer no evidence to support the allegation. These statements simply constitute a recitation of the elements of negligence," Judge Evans wrote. "In effect, plaintiffs have simply pled every possible applicable cause of action by listing the elements of strict liability and negligence and pairing them with conclusory statements with no evident factual basis. The plaintiffs 'claim appears to rest entirely upon the theory that they had no metallic microemboli before surgery and 1 of defendant's many instruments was used, so defendants must have done something wrong," she wrote. In May 2016, Intuitive warned that small particulates could be introduced inside the heart during intra-cardiac procedures using its da Vinci Xi device. Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Intuitive said it hadn't received any reports of injuries related to the high-density polyethylene particles it turned up during quality inspections of its 5mm-8mm universal seal or the 12mm & stapler universal seal used with the da Vinci Xi. Intuitive said the particulate was found in the insufflation stopcocks used with the seals. JOHNSON CONTROLS: No Lone Pine Case Management Order, Judge Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned AMOS HOSTETLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., et al., Defendants, Cause No. 3:15-cv-226- JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.), Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. denied the motion filed by Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) for entry of a Lone Pine Case Management Order. The putative class action against JCI and Tocon Holdings, LLC arose out of alleged environmental contamination originated from a manufacturing plant in Goshen, Indiana operated by JCI from approximately 1937 through 2006 and then sold to Tocon in 2007. Claiming personal injury and property damage, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in state court on May 30, 2014, asserting claims arising under state law against JCI and Tocon, including common law claims for trespass, nuisance, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages along with a statutory environmental legal action claim. The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages from both defendants as well as an injunction requiring both defendants to remediate the contamination to non-detect levels. On May 28, 2015, JCI removed the action to the district court. JCI filed its first motion for Lone Pine order seeking production of the damages information at issue in its motion to compel previously filed in state court. Lone Pine orders are named after the 1986 environmental contamination case from which they originated -- Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., No. L-33606085, 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Nov. 18, 1986). Lone Pine orders are case management orders, used typically in complex mass tort litigation, that require plaintiffs to produce prima facie evidence in support of their claims or risk dismissal of their case. After the Court denied its orginal motion with leave to refile, JCI filed a renewed motion for Lone Pine order on September 15, 2016. The renewed Lone Pine motion argued issues related to the timing and scope of class certification and bifurcation which JCI similarly raised before the state court and Special Master in May 2015. JCI contended that exceptional circumstances warrant a Lone Pine order. According to JCI, the plaintiffs' complaint does not articulate the specific injuries to the named plaintiffs based on their exposure to the toxic chemicals migrating from the JCI site. Judge Gotsch, however, found that the case does not present sufficiently exceptional circumstances to warrant a Lone Pine order. The judge was most convinced that other procedural mechanisms -- especially motions for summary judgment, the class certification process, Daubert motions, and motion in limine -- exist for JCI to use to address what it perceives to be the plaintiffs' failure to prove its case. Therefore, Judge Gotsch declined to issue a Lone Pine order as JCI requested. A full-text copy of Judge Gotsch's January 25, 2017 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/DuIJGk from Leagle.com. Amos Hostetler, Debbie Hostetler, Rita Chairez, Becky Null, Maria Tovar, Plaintiffs, represented by John D. Ulmer, Yoder Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham LLP, Michael P. O'Neil -- moneil@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard -- tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Benjamin A. Wolowski -- bwolowski@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP & Rodney L. Michael, Jr. -- rmichael@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. Johnson Controls Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrew E. Skroback -- askroback@chadbourne.com -- Chadbourne & Parke LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren T. Lee -- llee@chadbourne.com -- Chadbourne & Parke LLP, pro hac vice, Scott W. Coyle -- scoyle@chadbourne.com -- Chadbourne & Parke LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Joseph Hall -- thall@chadbourne.com -- Chadbourne & Parke LLP, pro hac vice & Kelly J. Hartzler -- kelly.hartzler@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Yoder Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham, Defendant, represented by Daniel W. Glavin -- dglavin@omwlegal.com -- O'Neill McFadden & Willett LLP & Michael E. O'Neill -- moneill@omwlegal.com -- O'Neill McFadden & Willett LLP. LENDING CLUB: NY Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Cariello, Esq. -- ccariello@orrick.com -- and Bob Loeb, Esq. -- rloeb@orrick.com -- of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on Jan. 30, a federal district court in the Southern District of New York granted a motion to compel arbitration in Bethune v. Lending Club Corporation, et al., a closely watched putative class action raising important issues for the fintech industry. The plaintiff filed the complaint in this action in April 2016 against Lending Club and WebBank, challenging a loan obtained through Lending Club's online platform and issued by WebBank. He alleged, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, that the defendants violated state usury laws, state consumer protection laws, and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by lending to borrowers at interest rates above the usury caps in the borrowers' home states. The plaintiff alleged that these laws applied notwithstanding WebBank's status as an FDIC-insured, state-chartered bank presumptively entitled to preemption of state usury laws. He relied on the Second Circuit's 2015 decision in Madden v. Midland Funding -- which declined to apply federal preemption in the context of a non-bank holder of defaulted debt -- and he further alleged that Lending Club, and not WebBank, was the "true lender" with respect to the loans at issue. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause in the loan agreement between the plaintiff and WebBank. That clause provided that "[e]ither party to this Agreement, or LendingClub, may . . . require that the sole and exclusive forum and remedy for resolution of a Claim be final and binding arbitration." And importantly, it defined "Claim" to encompass "any past, present, or future claim, dispute, or controversy . . . including . . . the validity or enforceability of this Arbitration Provision." The defendants argued that the arbitration clause required arbitration of all issues, including the enforceability of the arbitration clause itself. The district court has now agreed, finding that the threshold question of arbitrability of the dispute was for the arbitrator to resolve. Noting the "emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution," the court found that there was "clear and unmistakable evidence from the arbitration agreement" that the parties had intended to arbitrate the question of the arbitration clause's enforceability. The court also made quick work of the plaintiff's "perfunctory" suggestion that the arbitration agreement was itself unconscionable. And crucially, the court compelled arbitration on a purely individual -- rather than class action -- basis, citing language in the arbitration clause that specifically stated that "no arbitration shall proceed on a class, representative, or collective basis." Under the Federal Arbitration Act, the court's decision is potentially subject to immediate appeal to the Second Circuit under Sec 1292(b). The decision, especially if it is affirmed, may provide increased certainty and comfort for the marketplace lending industry and investors. Although the court resolved only the threshold question of whether the enforceability of the arbitration clause is a question for the court or an arbitral tribunal, the court's reading of the plain language of the arbitration clause and rejection of the plaintiff's unconscionability argument suggest that an arbitrator is likely to find the entire dispute arbitrable. The right to arbitrate a dispute is, of course, not a resolution of the underlying legal claims. Typically, however, arbitration is a less expensive form of dispute resolution, with modified discovery rules, accelerated timetables, and confidentiality restrictions not applicable or available in federal court. Also highly significant is the court's decision to compel arbitration only on an individual basis. By confining the dispute to the plaintiff's individual claims, the arbitration clause dramatically reduces the defendants' potential exposure even if the claims are resolved adversely. LTG LLC: Faces "Miranda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Miranda, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LTG, LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-00143-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla., January 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. LTG, LLC operates a rental car company in Orange County, Florida. The Plaintiff works as front desk employee from October 2015 to December 2016. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com MAG ENTERPRISES: Doesn't Properly Pay Dancers, "Morin" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Morin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mag Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Cheerleaders Gentlemen's Club, Case No. 2:17-cv-00130-CRE (W.D. Penn., January 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay exotic entertainers' premium overtime compensation and for improperly collecting a portion of the tips received from customers. Mag Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates Cheerleaders Gentlemen's Club, which offers adult entertainment services including adult exotic dancing in the nature of live performances at various locations, including at 3100 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201, 2740 South Front Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19148, and 54 Crescent City Boulevard, Gloucester, New Jersey 08030. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen Etzel, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15232 Telephone: (412)322-9243 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com MALLINCKRODT PLC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Mallinckrodt PLC (NYSE:MNK) to the securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the March 27, 2017 Lead Plaintiff deadline. If you purchased or otherwise acquired securities of MNK between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017 and suffered over $50,000 in losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. For more information visit: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/MNK or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing MNK@hbsslaw.com. Beginning in late 2014, MNK allegedly made assurances to investors that its drug, Acthar, produces sustainable revenues that were mostly attributable to sources other than Medicare and Medicaid. However, on November 16, 2016, a Citron Research report revealed that the percentage of Acthar 2014 and 2015 revenues attributable to Medicare alone was over 45% and 48%, respectively. Citron also reported that the total percentage of Acthar 2014 and 2015 revenues attributable to both Medicare and Medicaid was over 60% and 61%, respectively. This news drove the price of MNK shares down over 18%. Then, on January 18, 2017, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced that MNK would pay $100 million to settle charges that Acthar revenues were the product of an illegal monopoly. This news drove the price of MNK down over 5%. "We're evaluating management's knowledge of facts undermining the Defendants' assurances to investors," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding MNK should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email MNK@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national investor-rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with offices in 10 cities. The Firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the Firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com MANITOBA: Flood Evacuees' Suit Certified ---------------------------------------- The class action relating to the damages suffered by members of the First Nations residing in Manitoba as a result of the 2011 flood is now certified to proceed by way of class action following the release of a unanimous decision by the Manitoba Court of Appeal. In April 2012, McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP filed a class proceeding against The Government of Manitoba alleging the excessive flooding of the First Nations lands was caused by the operation of the Government's dams and water control structures. The class action includes all First Nation residents of Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little Saskatchewan, Lake St. Martin, and Dauphin River, whose property on Reserve, real or personal, was flooded in 2011, or who were evacuated, displaced or were unable to reside on Reserve because of flooding on Reserve in 2011. Among the issues the court approved for determination at trial are whether the Defendant, by its actions caused the flooding to occur (and if so, were there actions unreasonable), did the Defendant owe a duty of care to the Plaintiffs in the management and operation of the water control structures, and was this duty breached. Bill Jenkins, one of the lawyers with McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP who spearheaded the action said, "We are very pleased that individuals who were exposed to the conditions caused by the flooding will be allowed to go forward with their claims on a class basis. We look forward to the next steps in this litigation." Eric Troniak, local co-counsel for the Plaintiffs on the class action said, "We look forward to have our day in court to obtain justice for what has been done to us and for the continued effects on us. We all want to have a degree of closure and wish to be able to move on with our lives. Many of the evacuees and their families continue to endure hardship and suffering caused by the flood." It is too early at this stage to quantify the claims of class members if the action is successful, but it is anticipated the amounts will be significant. MANPOWER INC: Settlement in "Mata" Suit Gets Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUVENTINA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER INC. / CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-03787- LHK (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the Plaintiff's Renewed Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement and vacated the February 16, 2017 pre-trial conference and the March 20, 2017 jury trial. For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class shall consist of all current and former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for Defendant Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula from April 12, 2009 through September 8, 2016 and all current and former non- exempt, hourly associates who worked for Defendants Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US Inc. from February 13, 2009 through September 8, 2016. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person who performed work and/or suffered violations of any law occurring while such person was in the employ of either Manpower US Inc. and/or CPM LTD d/b/a Manpower of San Diego and Manpower Temporary Services shall not be considered a Class Member with respect to such employment. The Court appointed Plaintiffs Claudia Padilla and Lesli Guido to serve as Class Representatives while the Plaintiffs' counsels, Fitzpatrick, Spini & Swanston and Wanger Jones Helsley PC are appointed as the Class Counsels. CPT Group, Inc. is appointed as the Settlement Administrator. Promptly following the entry of the Order, the Settlement Administrator will prepare a final version of the Class Notice, incorporating into it the relevant dates and deadlines set in the Order. The Class Notice will be initially prepared in English and then, once finalized, translated into Spanish. The Court scheduled a hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the Settlement for May 11, 2017. Not later than 14 calendar days before the deadline for objection or exclusion, the Plaintiffs are ordered to file a motion for approval of their Class Counsels attorneys' fees and costs. The motion for Class Counsels attorneys' fees and costs shall be heard concurrently with the motion for final approval on May 11, 2017. Claudia Padilla, et al., Plaintiff, represented by Charles Swanston, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, Bernard James Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, David E. Cameron -- dcameron@downeybrand.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Patrick Darryn Toole -- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC. Manpower Inc. / California Peninsula, et al., Defendants, represented by Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis Lawrence Tobin -- frank.tobin@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, LLC, James Patrick Allen -- Patrick.Allen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Carter Ferrantella -- jesseferrantella@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP & Timothy Lloyd Johnson -- tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart, P.C.. MARK OBENSTINE: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Estakhrian" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled James Estakhrian, et al., the Plaintiffs v. Mark Obenstine, et al., the Defendants, Case No. CV 11-3480 FMO (CWx) (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Fernando M. Olguin entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 2. certifying the following class with respect to Plaintiffs' claims for professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, the UCL and the CLRA: "all individuals who were class members in, i.e. did not opt out of, Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al., Nevada District Court, Case No. A582541, excluding Sanjay Varma"; 3. certifying the following subclass with respect to Estakhrian's breach of contract claim: "[all] class members who entered into a retainer agreement with Defendant Mark Obenstine regarding the subject matter of Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al., Nevada District Court, Case No. A582541"; 4. appointing Plaintiffs as the class representatives for the class and subclass; and 5. appointing Chavez & Gertler, the Irvine Law Group, Mehri and Skalet, and the Fay Law Group as class counsel. The matter arises out of a class action that was litigated in Nevada state court, Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al., Case No. A582541. On February 11, 2009, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint regarding the purchase of condominium units in what became the Cosmopolitan Hotel, located in Las Vegas, Nevada. The class members sought to "rescind their purchase contracts and to obtain a refund of their escrow deposits[.]" The Nevada litigation was eventually settled in two stages in 2010. Thereafter, on April 22, 2011, plaintiff James Estakhrian, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed this action against defendants Mark Obenstine, Benjamin F. Easterlin, and his law firm King & Spalding, LLP, Terry A. Coffing and his law firm Marquis & Aurbach P.C. (now called Marquis Aurbach Coffing, P.C.). Obenstine, the King & Spalding defendants, and the MAC defendants are all attorneys who represented the class members in the Nevada litigation. The court previously dismissed the MAC defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court also approved a class settlement between plaintiffs and the King & Spalding defendants and entered judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, Obenstine is the sole remaining defendant in this action. In the ruling, the Court noted that Obenstine contends that "there are three mechanisms for resolution far superior to a nationwide class action in California, which has a tenuous connection to the dispute: (1) resolution before the Court that approved the settlement and reserved the jurisdiction, (2) separate class action lawsuits in the various states where Defendants' clients are domiciled, or (3) separate actions by individual members who actually suffered harm as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged." Obenstine's contentions are unpersuasive, the Court held. The scope of the Nevada state court's jurisdiction is limited to the "administration," "consummation," "enforcement," "interpretation," "construction," and "implementation" of the East and West Tower settlement agreements. Here, plaintiffs do not allege a breach of the East or West Tower settlement agreements. But even assuming they did, or that the issues in this case concern the terms of the settlement agreements in the Nevada litigation, Obenstine never appeared pro hac vice in the Nevada litigation and is not a member of the Nevada Bar, so there appears to be no basis for the Nevada court to exercise jurisdiction over him. As for separate class actions in the various states where class members are domiciled, the court has already determined that the choice of law doctrine favors the application of California law in this action. Further, Obenstine has not shown that any class member, let alone any of the subclass members that signed retainer agreements with Obenstine, are from a state other than California or Nevada. But even if there are class members from other states, Obenstine's proposal is plainly unmanageable, as it would require individual class members to litigate Obenstine's liability separately even though it could be established by common evidence. Also, Obenstine does not explain how class members from states other than California would establish personal jurisdiction over him. Finally, the court is unclear as to the meaning and effect of Obenstine's third proposal, i.e., "separate actions by individual members who actually suffered harm as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged." Obenstine does not explain how to or who makes the determination that an "individual member" has "actually suffered harm as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged." In any event, if plaintiffs prove liability, damages may be calculated by class and subclass. Moreover, "in this circuit. . . . damage calculations alone cannot defeat certification." Yokoyama, 594 F.3d at 1094." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SRaztXgx Additional information about the settlement is available at: http://www.cosmo2016settlement.com/ MIDCOAST ENERGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP has launched an investigation into whether the board members of Midcoast Energy Partners, L.P. (NYSE: MEP) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition of Midcoast's outstanding units by Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Enbridge will acquire, for cash, all of the outstanding publicly held common units of Midcoast at a price of $8.00 per common unit. The investigation concerns whether the Midcoast board failed to satisfy their duties to the Company unit holders, including whether the board adequately pursued alternatives to the acquisition and whether the board obtained the best price possible for Midcoast shares of common units. Nationally recognized Johnson & Weaver is investigating whether the proposed deal price represents adequate consideration. If you own the common units of Midcoast and purchased the units before January 27, 2017, and believe the proposed buyout price is too low and you're interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471. About Johnson & Weaver, LLP: Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonandweaver.com MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Judge Bumb Certified Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled DANNY FEQUIERE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-07541-RMB-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Renee Marie Bumb entered an order: 1. certifying a settlement class of: "all consumers with a New Jersey address to whom Milstead & Associates, LLC mailed a written communication to the Plaintiffs Complaint during the period beginning October 15, 2014, and ending November 4,2015 where the letter stated in relevant part: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act entitles you to dispute the debt, or any portion, thereof within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this thereof letter. If you do not dispute the debt within that period, it will be presumed to be valid." 2. defining the "Class Claims" as those claims arising from Milstead's collection letters, which omitted the term "by the debt collector" or its equivalent from the disclosure required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(3) and which allegedly violates 15 U.S.C. section 1692e(10) and 1692g(a)(3); 3. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative; 4. appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Ryan Gentile, as Class Counsel; and 5. appointing First Class, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator to administer notice to the class and the settlement. The Court further entered an order: a. approving Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs that it be mailed to the last known address of each member of the Settlement Class (individually, a "Settlement Class Member," collectively, the "Settlement Class Members") as shown in Milstead, Inc.'s business records. Class Counsel will cause the Class Notice to be mailed to Settlement Class Members on or before March 2017. Prior to sending the Class Notice, the Settlement Administrator shall determine who among the Settlement Class Members have supplied the U.S. postal Service with a forwarding address, and use any such forwarding address instead of the address found in the spreadsheet. Neither the Settlement Administrator nor Class Counsel shall be required to skip trace any notices returned as undeliverable in an effort to obtain valid mailing addresses; b. finding that mailing of the Class Notice, and the Parties' notice plan, is the only notice required,(and that such notice satisfies the requirements of due process pursuant to the federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 23, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law; c. Settlement Class Members shall have until April 14, 2017 to exclude themselves from, or object to, the proposed settlement. Any Settlement Class members desiring to exclude themselves from the action must serve copies of the request on the Settlement Administrator postmarked by that date; d. directing any Settlement Class Members who wish to object to the settlement must submit an objection in writing to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and serve copies of the objection on the Settlement Administrator. All objections must be in writing and personally signed by the Settlement Class Member and include: (1) the objector's name, address, telephone number, and the last four digits of their Social Security Number; (2) a sentence stating that to the best of his or her knowledge s/he is a member of the Settlement Class; (3) the name and number of the case: Fequiere v. Milstead & Associates, LLC., D.N.J. Case No. I :15-cv- 07541RMB-AMD (4) the factual basis and legal grounds for the objection to the Settlement; (5) the identity of any witnesses whom the objector may call to testify at the Final Fairness Hearing; and (6) copies of any exhibits the objector may seek to offer into evidence at the Final Fairness Hearing. The objection must indicate whether the Settlement Class Member and/or their lawyer(s) intend to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing. Any lawyer who intends to appear at the Final fairness Hearing also must enter a written Notice of Appearance of Counsel with the Clerk of the Court no later than April 14, 2-17, and shall include the full caption and case number of each previous class action case in which that lawyer(s) has represented an objector; e. If not already filed, directing Milstead to file with the Court proof of compliance with the notice requirements of the Class Action fairness Act of 2005,28 U.S.C. section 1715(b); and d. directing final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the Agreement and whether final approval shall be given to it and the requests for fees and expenses by Class Counsel will be held on May 1, 2017. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dpvAjMRv MRO CORPORATION: Judge Seals Discovery Documents in "Wilson" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THOMAS M. WILSON, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MRO CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05279 (S.D. W.Va.), Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Portions of Exhibits 5 and 6 to Document No. 95 of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Against Defendant Ciox Health, LLC. The Court noted that sealing the designated exhibits to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery against the Defendant Ciox Health, LLC, does not unduly prejudice the public's right to access court documents. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 24, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/g763P2 from Leagle.com. Thomas M. Wilson, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Cheryl A. Fisher, TIANO & O'DELL. Thomas M. Wilson, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Tony L. O'Dell, TIANO O'DELL & William M. Tiano, TIANO O'DELL. MRO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Courtney Devon Taylor - - ctaylor@schnader.com -- SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS, David Smith -- dsmith@schnader.com -- SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS, Keith E. Whitson -- kwhitson@schnader.com -- SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS & Lori Streets Muldoon, PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE. CIOX Health, LLC, Defendant, represented by Devon J. Stewart -- devon.stewart@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON & Russell D. Jessee -- russell.jessee@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON. Medi-Copy Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lindsay M. Gainer -- lgainer@kaycasto.com -- KAY CASTO & CHANEY & Robert Lee Bandy -- rbandy@kaycasto.com -- KAY CASTO & CHANEY. MYLAN INC: Faces Class Action Over Clomipramine Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois drug purchaser on Jan. 30 became the latest to accuse Mylan, Sandoz and Taro Pharmaceuticals of conspiring to inflate the price of a generic antidepressant by 1,000 percent, in a class action launched in New Jersey federal court. The three companies schemed to push the price of generic clomipramine from $0.94 per capsule to more than $10 per capsule in an anti-competitive collaboration that dates back to a February 2013 Generic Pharmaceutical Association meeting in Orlando, Florida, according to FWK Holdings LLC. The suit comes on the heels of a complaint filed in Puerto Rico by a Teamsters benefit fund that makes nearly identical claims. FWK inherited antitrust claims from Frank W. Kerr Co., which had purchased the drug from at least one of the defendants, according to the suit. "Defendants' unlawful conduct has successfully eliminated competition in the market, and plaintiffs and class members have sustained, and continue to sustain, significant losses in the form of artificially inflated prices paid to defendants," FWK said, estimating class-wide damages at hundreds of millions of dollars. Clomipramine, a prescription antidepressant taken orally to treat obsessive compusive disorder, panic disorder, depression and chronic pain, has been on the market since 1996 and is on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines, the suit said. The trio of defendants dominate the market, with their sales accounting for about 98 percent of all U.S. generic clomipramine sales, FSK said. In 2013, Mylan Inc. and Taro Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. sold more than $96 million worth of the drug each, with Sandoz Inc. selling more than $7.6 million, according to the complaint. In 2015, two years after the collusion allegedly took place, clomipramine sales hit $519 million -- more than half the total revenue for the same drug from 2011 to 2014, the suit said, pointing to this type of growth in a market as mature as the one for generic clomipramine as evidence of the scheme. A mature generic market includes several generic competitors, and since each of their drugs is easily replaced by a competitor's, pricing tends to be the main difference between the products, according to FWK. Prices for prescription generics are generally determined by reimbursement agreements between health plans and the pharmacies that dispense the drugs, a process that keeps one manufacturer from increasing prices for fear of losing sales to competitors who keep their prices steady, the suit said. Before May 2013, generic clomipramine had kept its price steady, but each of the three manufacturers increased the price of their product in the three months after the February 2013 GPhA conference. Without collusion, such a massive price-hike couldn't have happened, FWK said. FWK also pointed to the lack of any drug shortages, supply disruptions or other factors that could explain the increase, as well as the fact that the price of the drug remained flat in countries such as the U.K., Denmark and Norway. The company aims to bring Sherman Act claims on behalf of a class of direct purchasers that bought generic clomipramine hydrochloride in its 25, 50 and 75 mg capsules from any of the three defendants in the U.S. from May 3, 2013 to the present. The lawsuit follows a number of other lawsuits filed in the last month, including one also filed on Jan. 30 in New Jersey federal court, that accuse a variety of generic drug manufacturers of using GPhA meetings as incubators of antitrust conspiracies. None of the defendants could be reached for comment on Jan. 31. FWK is represented by John D. Radice of the Radice Law Firm PC, Thomas M. Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- David S. Nalven -- davidn@hbsslaw.com -- and Lauren Guth Barnes -- lauren@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Joseph M. Vanek, David P. Germaine and Jeffrey R. Moran of Vanek Vickers & Masini PC. Counsel information for the defendants was unavailable on Jan. 31. The case is FWK Holdings LLC v. Mylan Inc. et al., case number 1:17-cv-00626 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. MYLAN INC: NECA-IBEW Sues Over Generic Clomipramine-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mylan, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01128 (D.P.R. January 27, 2017), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the prices of generic Clomipramine in the United States. Generic clomipramine hydrochloride is a tricyclic antidepressant used for the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, major depressive disorder and chronic pain. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andres W. Lopez, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES W. LOPEZ, P.S.C. P.O. Box 13909 San Juan, PR 00908 Telephone: (787) 294-9508 Facsimile: (787) 294-9519 - and - David W. Mitchell, Esq. Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq. Carmen A. Medici, Esq. Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com bomara@rgrdlaw.com xanb@rgrdlaw.com cmedici@rgrdlaw.com ashingler@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Robert M. Rothman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com RRothman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: PGeller@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Damien J. Marshall, Esq. Duane L. Loft, Esq. Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com dloft@bsfllp.com mtripolitsiotis@bsfllp.com - and - Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq. CAVANAGH & O'HARA 2319 West Jefferson Street Springfield, IL 62702 Telephone: (217) 544-1771 Facsimile: (217) 544-9894 NAT'L FOOTBALL: Former Cheerleaders File Wage Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- ABC13 reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the NFL just days ahead of the Super Bowl. The suit was filed in San Francisco by a former 49ers cheerleader. The lawsuit has been filed against the NFL as a whole, but also expressly names the 49ers and the Oakland Raiders as defendants. The cheerleaders filing the suit say in some cases they were getting paid less than minimum wage, for some, that was less than $5,000 a year. The suit claims the NFL and teams conspired by agreeing to pay female athletes below their market value. "A lot of the stuff that goes on makes us feel like second class citizens and it's time for us to be treated fairly and paid our fair market value. The value we bring to these teams," said Caitlin Yates, former Raiderette. Ms. Yates was with the Oakland raiders for five years. She's not the lead plaintiff, but says she was only paid $125 a game in one lump sum at the end of the year. An NFL spokesperson did not comment to ABC News, saying they were not aware of the lawsuit. NEA DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Driver's OT, "Johnson" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEA Delivery, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00265- ESW (D. Ariz., January 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay delivery drivers' overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. NEA Delivery, LLC operates a package delivery company that contracts to deliver packages on behalf of third parties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 E. Erie Street, Suite 210 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com ljohnson@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com NEAL TRUCKING: Poisson Seeks Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned Ronald Poisson, individually and on behalf of all the classes and aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. Neal Trucking, Inc., Randy Neal, David Beal, and Does 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv-02241-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.), Mr. Ronald Poisson will move the Court for the entry of an order: 1. preliminarily approving the parties' stipulation for preliminary approval Of Settlement of Class Claims with respect to the following cases: (1) Poisson v. Neal Trucking, Inc., Randy Neal, and David Beal; Case No. EDCV13-2241 VAP (DTBx); 2. preliminarily certifying the proposed Settlement Classes for purposes of settlement only; 3. preliminarily appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative; 4. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for each of the respective Settlement Classes; 5. directing that the Classes be given notice of the pendency of this action and the Settlement; and 6. scheduling a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement, entry of a proposed final judgment, and Plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses, as well as an Enhancement Award to the Class Representatives. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H6uM4Pck The Plaintiff is represented by: Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599 8255 Facsimile: (213) 402 3949 E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com - and - Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P. C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883 4900 Facsimile: (818) 883 4902 E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com NEUSTAR INC: Faces "Parshall" Securities Suit in Delaware --------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NEUSTAR, INC., JAMES G. CULLEN, PAUL D. BALLEW, JOEL P. FRIEDMAN, MARK N. GREENE, LISA A. HOOK, ROSS K. IRELAND, PAUL A. LACOUTURE, DEBORAH D. RIEMAN, MICHAEL J. ROWNY, HELLENE S. RUNTAGH , GOLDEN GATE CAPITAL, GIC, AERIAL TOPCO, L.P., and AERIAL MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00060- UNA (D. Del., January 20, 2017), alleges that Defendants omitted material information with respect to the proposed acquisition of Neustar by Golden Gate Capital, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act. NeuStar, Inc. provides hard-to-replicate data sets and proprietary analytics worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Maniskas RM LAW, P.C. 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: (484) 588-5516 - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 295-5310 NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Ceragioli Class Certification Bid Withdrawn ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sara L. Ellis entered an order in the lawsuit styled Dennis Ceragioli, Plaintiff, v. Northwest Collectors Inc., the Defendant, Case No. Case 1:16-cv-07706 (N.D. Ill.), withdrawing a motion to certify a class. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 31, 2017, a status hearing is set for Feb. 22, 2017 at 9:30 AM. If stipulation to dismiss is filed prior to Feb. 22, 2017, no appearance is necessary. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=70iI7j3W OCWEN LOAN: Judge Approves $600K Deal to Settle Software Error -------------------------------------------------------------- Dorothy Atkins at Law360 reports a California federal judge said on January 27 she will approve Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC's $600,000 settlement resolving class action claims that it failed to apply certain mortgage payments to borrower accounts because of a software bug, calling the deal "an excellent result" for the roughly 9,000 class members. U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman said the deal fairly and adequately compensates class members, that the parties adequately notified the members, and that there's "really nothing for class members to complain about." "It's well within the range of an adequate -- if not excellent -- settlement," Judge Freeman said. Under the proposed settlement, more than 650 out of 9,000 potential class members who hold approximately 7,000 loans will receive 100 percent of any actual damages they incurred to their loans plus $57.33 per loan as statutory damages. The plan also awards approximately $179,000 in attorneys' fees, which Judge Freeman said represented about 29 percent of the settlement, which is less than what class counsel is entitled to. The deal's approval marks an end to a class action filed by lead plaintiff Joseph C. Messineo in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County in May 2015. The original complaint alleged Ocwen had "engaged in a pattern and practice of misapplying borrowers' payments to their home mortgage loans" by failing to timely apply excess funds to reduce the principal balances of the loans, allowing Ocwen to charge and collect additional interest on the loans in violation of the Truth in Lending Act. Messineo sought to certify a nationwide class of borrowers whose loans had been serviced by Ocwen, and the case was removed to federal court. After Ocwen generally denied the allegations, the parties entered into negotiations. During mediation, they exchanged "multiple rounds" of information and discovered that the reporting error was caused by software coding "bugs" that had been introduced into Ocwen's servicing platform through a vendor's October 2013 update, according to memo in support of final settlement approval. Shortly after, the parties finalized the terms of their settlement, and in September, the court preliminarily approved an amended settlement and conditionally certified a nationwide class. The parties mailed notices to 9,374 class members of which 150 were undeliverable, according to the memo. The parties also notified 55 different federal and state regulators, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is charged by the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act with enforcement of the TILA statute. During a fairness hearing on Friday, class counsel Daniel J. Muller of Ventura Rossi Hersey & Muller LLP told Judge Freeman that no class member or government agency has objected to the deal and only one person has opted out of it. The court also received 823 claims for account adjustment relief, representing about 650 of the 7,000 unique loans within the class. Although the number of claims submitted might seem low, it's because most of the borrowers never made mortgage payments higher than their monthly minimum, and therefore weren't affected by the miscalculation, Muller explained. They still received a $57.33 credit to their accounts, even if they didn't submit a claim, he said. Ocwen attorney Michael R. Pennington of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP said in this particular situation, the error was not in effect for a long time, and there wasn't a "high-dollar impact" of the error. It primarily impacted borrowers who had made large mortgage payments and still accrued interest on their accounts. However, if those borrowers filed a claim, they received 100 percent relief, which is "a very rare case," he said. Judge Freeman said that those were "good points," and frankly the administrator would distribute the settlement funds even without a claim, and basically all class members have to do is cash a check. Jude Freeman said she would file a "lengthy order" approving the deal soon. The class is represented by Anthony F. Ventura -- aventura@venturarossi.com -- and Daniel J. Muller -- dmuller@venturarossi.com -- of Ventura Rossi Hersey & Muller LLP. Ocwen is represented by Robert J. Campbell -- rcampbell@bradley.com -- and Michael R. Pennington -- mpennington@bradley.com -- of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP and John B. Sullivan -- jbs@severson.com -- and Mary kate Kamka -- mkk@severson.com -- of Severson & Werson PC. The case is Messineo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, case number 5:15-cv-02076, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. OPHTHOTECH CORP: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm announces a class action lawsuit against Ophthotech Corporation. Investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Ophthotech shares between May 11, 2015 and December 12, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm prior to March 13, 2017, also known as the lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at -- brian@lundinlawpc.com -- No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The Complaint alleges Ophthotech issued deceptively positive reports about the success and potential of its treatment Fovista, used in combination with Lucentis, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent on the market, despite knowing that the phase 3 clinical trial of Fovista would be unsuccessful in achieving its primary endpoint. According to the Complaint, these statements caused Ophthotech stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. On December 12, 2016, Ophthotech revealed that the trial had failed to achieve its primary endpoint. When this news was released to the investing public, the value of Ophthotech stock fell, causing investors harm. OREGON: 10 Districts Opt Out of Timber Management Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that only 10 of 150 taxing districts that could be affected by a $1.4 billion lawsuit over timber management on some state lands have chosen not to participate, according to Roger Nyquist, chairman of the Linn County Board of Commissioners. The districts, which range from county boards of commissioners to school districts to library districts, had a deadline of 5:00 p.m. Jan. 25 to opt out. But postmarks also counted, so attorneys waited until Jan. 30 to determine the final list of participants. Of the 10 districts that opted out, five are located in Clatsop County, including the Board of Commissioners, the Clatsop County Fair, 4-H and Extension Service District, Road District No. 1 and the Rural Law Enforcement District. Clatsop County has more than 147,000 acres of the state forest lands at issue in the lawsuit and could have received as much as $100 million if the plaintiffs prevail. Locally, the only district to opt out was the Benton County Soil & Water Conservation District. Others were the Sunset Empire Park & Recreation District (Seaside), the Clackamas County Soil Conservation District, the Port of Portland and the Washington County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2 (Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue). Remaining in the lawsuit, initially filed by Linn County, are 140 other counties and taxing districts. Mr. Nyquist said attorney John DiLorenzo -- johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Portland would tentatively file the complete list of remaining districts in Linn County Circuit Court on Feb. 3. The case is being heard by Judge Daniel Murphy. The lawsuit argues that the state of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Forestry have failed to maximize logging revenues from 650,000 acres of state forest trust lands scattered among the 15 counties that contain some of the land. The lawsuit essentially alleges breach of contract: The claim is that state managers failed in their duty to generate as much revenue as possible from the state forest lands, mainly logged- over or fire-damaged properties that were acquired by counties through tax foreclosures starting in the 1920s and then turned over to the state for management. A 1939 law says these lands must be managed for "the greatest permanent value to the state." At the time, the assumption was that "greatest permanent value" meant maximizing timber harvests from the lands, thereby maximizing revenue flowing to the counties. But over the years, the state broadened the definition of "greatest permanent value" so that it included other goals as well, such as clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and carbon storage. As those goals came on line, the money flowing to the counties started to erode, hence the claim that the state has breached its contract with the counties. Linn County filed the lawsuit on behalf of an estimated 150 total districts or government entities, and Judge Murphy gave them two months to opt out after he certified the class. Get news headlines sent daily to your inbox Linn County could receive up to $90 million if the plaintiffs prevail. The county shares more than 47,000 acres of the Santiam State Forest with Marion and Clackamas. Benton County has about 8,000 acres of state forest lands. The $1.4 billion monetary total sought is based on an estimated $35 million per year that the suit claims the forest trust land counties should have received but did not, beginning in 1998, when the state's management plan was altered. That totals $528.6 million, plus another $25.6 million in interest. The plaintiffs also seek another $881 million in perpetuity based on a 4 percent revenue stream. Other counties in which state forest trust lands are located are Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Douglas, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln, Marion, Polk, Tillamook and Washington. Oregon's state forests are: Clatsop State Forest: 136,000 acres in Clatsop and Columbia counties; Elliott State Forest: 93,000 acres in Coos and Douglas counties; Gilchrest State Forest: 70,000 acres in Klamath County; Santiam State Forest: 47,971 acres in Linn, Marion and Clackamas counties; Sun Pass State Forest: 21,317 acres near Klamath Falls; Tillamook State Forest: 364,000 acres in Washington, Yamhill, Tillamook and Clatsop counties. ORGANIGRAM: Could Face Suit Over Use of Unapproved Pesticides ------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Chiu at CBC News reports a medical marijuana patient in Lower Sackville, N.S., said he's worried after the marijuana he consumed for nearly a year was recalled by Health Canada because it was grown with two pesticides that, if heated, can emit hydrogen cyanide. John Percy, 67, smokes, vapes and bakes his cannabis to control pain in his hip caused by osteoarthritis. The former Green Party leader had been ordering his medical marijuana from OrganiGram in Moncton, N.B., the only licensed producer in Atlantic Canada. He said his pain was an "eight out of 10." "I was shocked," said Percy, when he first learned of the voluntary recall in late December. The letter said the marijuana he consumed "tested positive for bifenazate and/or myclobutanil, both unapproved pesticides and not registered for use on marijuana." "I assumed like most patients that the product would be organic," he said. According to Health Canada hydrogen cyanide interferes with how oxygen is used in the body and may cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting. Larger concentrations may cause gasping, irregular heartbeats, seizures, fainting, and even death. 'I got angry' He said he was willing to take a wait-and-see approach. But less than two weeks later, there was another, higher-level recall notice from OrganiGram saying all products manufactured since February had been recalled. "That's when I got angry and I started to consider what the effects on me have been," said Percy, who also sits on the board of Maritimers Unite for Medical Marijuana. He said he plans to talk to his doctor about whether the recalled medical marijuana he'd been consuming, about three grams a day, has adversely affected his health. 'Patient safety at risk' Percy said he's upset that Health Canada did not issue a mandatory recall. Health Canada said no cases of adverse reactions have been reported. "Putting patient safety at risk is unacceptable, and for a government department that is supposed to take care of people's safety, I think they've fallen down on the job," said Percy. He said he's written to the health minister and to members of Parliament. He believes Health Canada should test marijuana for more than 13 compounds to ensure it's safe for consumption. Percy said he and other licensed medical marijuana patients have discussed starting a class-action lawsuit. Without a licensed producer, he's going to an illegal dispensary - - and paying 30 per cent more for his medication. There's no compassionate pricing at the illegal spot, so his monthly marijuana budget has shot up to about $850 from $600. "It hurts, it hurts," he said. He said getting a prescription filled for another one of the 30- plus licensed producers in Canada would take months, but didn't want to wait in pain. PGA INC: "Schilling" Suit Seeks Certification of Opt-out Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Eric Schilling, Blaine Krohn, Erik Sinclair, David Krall, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PGA Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00202-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify an Opt-out class of: "all PGA employees who, on or after March 31, 2014, received pay for their hours worked over 40 hours per week that equaled less than 1.5 times the full average straight time cash wage that they received during the workweek". In the alternative, Plaintiffs Schilling, Krohn, and Sinclair move the Court to certify them as a representatives of a subclass consisting of: "all PGA employees who, on or after March 31, 2014, received overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their base rate of pay plus their cash fringe rate, rather than 1.5 times both their base rate of pay and their cash fringe rate. Plaintiffs Krohn and Sinclair move the Court to certify them as the representatives of a subclass consisting of: "all PGA employees who, on or after March 31, 2014, received overtime pay computed as 1.5 times their rate of pay for the type of work performed during overtime hours, rather than 1.5 times their higher average straight time wage rate earned during the workweek". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fC159VXV The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271 4500 Facsimile: (414) 271 6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com PGA INC: Asks Court to Decertify Class in "Schilling" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Eric Schilling Blaine Krohn, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PGA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00202-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), PGA moves the Court to enter an order: 1. decertifying the class conditionally certified by stipulation on November 2, 2016; 2. dismissing without prejudice any opt-in plaintiffs; and 3. granting all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=55Az6ZWt The Defendant is represented by: John H. Zawadsky, Esq. Robert S. Driscoll, Esq. Katherine M. O'Malley, Esq. REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. 1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 298 1000 Facsimile: (414) 298 8097 E-mail: jzawadsky@reinhartlaw.com rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com komalley@reinhartlaw.com PIXARBIO CORP: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of PixarBio Corporation securities (OTC: PXRB) from October 31, 2016, through January 20, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PixarBio investors. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the market for PixarBio's securities exhibited manipulative or deceptive activities; (2) PixarBio's statements in press releases, third-party promotional materials, and its Form S- 1 regarding, among other things, PixarBio's business combinations and current shareholders; the identity and qualifications of key shareholders and employees and its current and prospective development efforts lacked accuracy; and (3) consequently, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 23, 2017, the SEC disclosed the temporary suspension of PixarBio trading "because the market for the security appears to reflect manipulative or deceptive activities and because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by PixarBio in press releases and its Form S-1 concerning, among other things: (1) the Company's business combinations and current shareholders; (2) the identity and qualifications of key shareholders and employees; and (3) the Company's current and prospective development efforts." If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 27, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights or interests, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) by email or by phone at 619-814-4471. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. About Johnson & Weaver, LLP: Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonandweaver.com PROJECT INVESTORS: Accord with Account Owners Has Initial Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra entered an order in the lawsuit entitled BRANDON LEIDEL, and MICHAEL WILSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, PROJECT INVESTORS, IN C. d/b/a CRYPTSY, a Florida corporation, PAUL VERNON , an individual, LORIE ANN NETTLES, an individual, RIDGEWOOD INVESTMENTS, INC., a New Jersey corporation, and KAUSHAL MAJMUDAR, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80060-KAM (S.D. Fla.), certifying this class for settlement purposes: "a1l CRYPTSY account owners who held Bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form of monies or currency at CRYPTSY as of November 1 , 2015 through the date of the final approval hearing in this action". Excluded from the Class are: (l) employees of CRYPTSY, including its shareholders, officers and directors and members of their immediate families; (2) any judge to whom this action is assigned and the judge's immediate family; and (3) persons who timely and validly opt to exclude themselves from the Class. Judge Marra further entered an order: 1. granting motion for preliminary approval of class action Settlement; 2. directing the issuance of class notice; 3. scheduling a final approval hearing; and 4. directing the issuance of notice of certification of the class as to Defendants Cryptsy and Vernon. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7KCGghvV The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Wites, Esq. WITES & KAPETAN, P.A . 4400 N. Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 570 8989 Facsimile: (954) 354 0205 Cryptsy is represented by: Patrick Rengstl, Esq. PAYTON & REN GSTL, LLC 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Lorie Ann Nettles is represented by: Mark A. Levy, Esq. BRINKLEY MORGAN 200 East Las Olas Blvd., 19th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Ridgewood Investments Inc. and Kaushal Majmudar are represented by: Jose G. Sepulveda, Esq. STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. 150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Q.E.D. ENVIRONMENTAL: Asks Court to Deny Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TERRILL JOHNSON, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Q.E.D. Environmental Systems Inc., a Michigan corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01454-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the Court on March 8, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., before Judge William H. Orrick to deny certification of class. The Defendant said, "In this wage-and-hour case, Plaintiff Terrill Johnson seeks to represent a putative class of Defendant QED's non-exempt employees. Plaintiff cannot certify a class because the undisputed evidence, including Plaintiff's own testimony, directly contradicts all of his class-based allegations. Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to prove any of Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, or adequacy, nor can he satisfy any of Rule 23(b)'s requirements for maintenance of a class action. QED therefore affirmatively moves to deny class certification. Plaintiff's counsel has known for over a year that QED's non-exempt employees at its San Leandro, California, facility could not possibly meet federal numerosity requirements. During his deposition, Plaintiff confirmed that a maximum of seven employees in San Leandro could have experienced occasional interrupted meal breaks. Plaintiff also testified that QED never had a policy or practice that was in conflict with California law, that QED never had a policy or practice of shortening employees' meal breaks, and that he had no knowledge whatsoever of any policy or practice regarding meal breaks in Defendant's facilities outside of the San Leandro facility. Moreover, Plaintiff has admitted that his alleged injury is neither common nor typical. Plaintiff testified in detail about the unique nature of his personal claims against QED. Under oath and contrary to the allegations made by his counsel in the Third Amended Complaint (TAC), Plaintiff repeatedly asserted that he was a victim of disparate treatment and that he was allegedly singled out by one supervisor." A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DTwQE4SQ The Defendants are represented by: Clement L. Glynn, Esq. Lauren E. Wood, Esq. GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 210 2800 Facsimile: (925) 945 1975 E-mail: cglynn@glynnfinley.com lwood@glynnfinley.com - and - Sarah E. Crippen, Esq. Amy S. Conners, Esq. Ashleigh M. Leitch, Esq. BEST & FLANAGAN LLP 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 339 7121 Facsimile: (612) 339 5897 QUALCOMM INC: Patent Policy Reason for Antitrust Target ------------------------------------------------------- Scott Graham at The Recorder reports the antitrust suits are coming fast and furious against Qualcomm Inc. The Federal Trade Commission sued the dominant provider of mobile phone chipsets Jan. 17. Since then Apple Inc. has sued in the U.S. and China, claiming billions in allegedly ill-gotten gains. And now consumers and even a small business that buys mobile phones for its employees are bringing class actions. Qualcomm ignored its contractual obligation to license standard- essential patents at fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) rates, Bleichmar, Fonti & Auld partner Lesley Weaver wrote in a complaint filed in San Jose federal court. Rather, the company is "extracting unreasonably high, unilaterally-determined royalty payments. Those payments have been passed on to consumers, according to the FTC." Hausfeld LLP has filed a similar class action on behalf of individual consumers. The two plaintiff firms are seeking to relate their cases to the FTC action, which has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. Qualcomm has already been taking an antitrust beating overseas. The Chinese government fined the company $975 million over monopolization, and the Korea Fair Trade Commission handed down a $854 million penalty last month. The U.S. FTC filed its complaint, accusing Qualcomm of threatening to disrupt chipset supplies when manufacturers tried to enforce Qualcomm's FRAND licensing promises. "The risk of losing access to Qualcomm baseband processors is too great for a cell phone manufacturer to bear because it would preclude the manufacturer from selling phones for use on important cellular networks," said Geoffrey Greene, assistant director of the FTC's bureau of competition, in the agency's complaint. Qualcomm has accused the FTC of rushing to court with a flawed theory in the waning days of the Obama administration at the bidding of companies such as Apple. It notes that the commission split 2-1 over whether to file at all. "The complaint seeks to advance the interests and bargaining power of companies that have generated billions in profit from sales of products made possible by the fundamental 3G and 4G cellular technology developed by innovators like Qualcomm," the company stated in a press release. Indeed, Apple followed with its own lawsuits. Apple complains, among other things, that Qualcomm insists on pegging its license to the sale price of iPhones. "Even when Apple sells an iPhone with added memory -- 256 GB instead of 128 GB -- Qualcomm collects a larger royalty just because of that added memory," Apple states in its complaint, signed by Fish & Richardson partner Juanita Brooks. Apple also is represented by Boies Schiller Flexner. The company contends that Qualcomm tried to "extort Apple into changing its responses and providing false information to the [Korea] FTC in exchange for Qualcomm's release of those payments." The case has been assigned to San Diego U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. Qualcomm is represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in the FTC case. QUALCOMM INC: Sued Over Alleged Baseband Processor Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Key, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Qualcomm Incorporated and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 5:17-cv-00442 (N.D. Cal., January 27, 2017), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' illegal business practices of acquiring and maintaining a monopoly in baseband processors through anticompetitive practices that drive competitors out of the market, bar new entrants, suppress innovation, and result in overcharges to consumers who purchase cellular devices. Qualcomm Incorporated develops, designs, licenses, and markets worldwide its digital communications products and services through two wholly-owned subsidiaries: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies ("QCT") and Qualcomm Technology Licensing ("QTL"). The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Amanda Bonn, Esq. Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com abonn@susmangodfrey.com oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com - and - Joseph Grinstein, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 65-6666 E-mail: jgrinstein@susmangodfrey.com RESPOND POWER: Third Circuit Revives False Add Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kat Sieniuc, writing for Law360, reports that the Third Circuit on Feb. 1 revived a proposed class action claiming a Pennsylvania energy company lied to customers about the amount of energy savings they would see after switching power servicers, saying it's irrelevant to class certification if the consumers had interpreted their contracts differently. Named plaintiffs Barbara and Thomas Gillis, and Scott and Kimberly McClelland asked the circuit court to look over their bid for class certification in 2015. The consumers accused Respond Power LLC -- an energy supply company that entered the Pennsylvania utility market in 2010 and is licensed by the Pennsylvania Utility Commission -- of charging higher rates for its energy services than were marketed in the ads they saw and communicated in contracts they signed. The district judge had denied certification, saying there lacked a common experience among proposed class members' claims because each named plaintiff had a subjective understanding of the contract they signed with the energy company. But after review, the panel could not say with confidence that the lower court had used proper discretion when making that decision, determining the district court had "based its denial of class certification on irrelevant evidence of plaintiffs' individualized understandings of Respond's standard form contract." Vacating the district court ruling and sending back the case, the Third Circuit panel held that "logically . . . standard form contracts should be interpreted uniformly as to all similarly situated signatories whenever it is reasonable to do so, rendering individual, transaction-specific interpretations inapposite." The suit dates back to May 2014, when the Gillises and the McClellands, who entered variable rate agreements with Respond in 2013, first accused the power company of lying to them about the cost savings they would see from making the switch to its services. That switch saw the named plaintiffs ultimately pay more for their electricity than they would have had they remained with their local providers, according to the suit. But the district court denied their motion for class certification, saying the consumers had different understandings - - or no understanding at all -- about how they were being billed for Respond's electricity services, and that there was no telling whether those understandings translated to other class members. The Gillises argued on appeal that "under Pennsylvania law, the putative class members' individual understandings and interpretations of the variable rate provision have no place in the district court's contract construction in this case, and thus should not have factored into the class certification analysis." The Third Circuit on Feb. 1 agreed. The named plaintiffs are seeking to represent a proposed class made up of about 50,000 customers who entered variable rate energy agreements with Respond between November 2010 and June 2014. Circuit Judges Michael A. Chagares, Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. and Luis Felipe Restrepo sat on the panel for the Third Circuit. Counsel information for the parties in the appeal was not immediately available. The case is Barbara Gillis et al v. Respond Power LLC, case number 15-3877, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. RIDDELL: Named Defendant in Concussion Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Jason Scott, writing for Athletic Business, reports that on Jan. 30, football helmet manufacturer Riddell was named as a defendant in a class-action lawsuit claiming they didn't properly protect football players from head injuries or inform them about the long- term risks. The suit, filed in a California court by the firm Circelli, Walter & Young, seeks damages for healthcare costs, lost wages and other damages, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. It comes on the heels of a separate class-action suit from the firm, filed earlier in January, in which the NCAA and the Big 12 Conference are the named defendants. The suit against Riddell alleges that the marketing for a particular line of helmets misrepresented their efficacy at reducing head-injuries and concussions. A University of Pittsburgh Medical Center study, funded by Riddell, claimed that that line of helmets could reduce the likelihood of a player suffering a concussion by more than 30 percent. The Star-Telegram reports that in 2000, a biomechanics firm sent a report to Riddell that no helmet is capable of preventing concussions. "Our complaint against Riddell is that Riddell designed and marketed a line of helmets that they claimed would reduce concussions when in reality they knew that marketing claim was false," attorney Vincent Circelli said. "Players relied on this concussion reduction marketing and suffered multiple concussions while wearing Riddell helmets." This suit isn't the first bout of legal trouble for the helmet manufacturer. Two suits, filed in July on behalf of former NFL players, claimed that Riddell failed to properly educate the plaintiffs about the long-term dangers of concussions and head injuries, and that the firm knew their equipment couldn't protect against those risks. In a statement, the company said: "Riddell has been working with the football community for over a decade and a half to understand the on-field circumstances contributing to concussions and to develop state-of-the-art helmets that reduce concussion risk. Plaintiffs' recycled allegations ignore the more than 15 years of work by Riddell, government agencies, football organizations, sports leagues, schools, industry groups and others to advance concussion awareness." ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Faces Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 2 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. securities (RRTS) from May 8, 2014 through January 30, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Roadrunner investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Roadrunner class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1044.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Roadrunner lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; (2) Roadrunner's financial statements dating back to the beginning of 2014 overstated the estimated results of operations; (3) Roadrunner's financial statements contained errors relating to unrecorded expenses from unreconciled balance sheet accounts including cash, driver and other receivables, and linehaul and other driver payables; and (4) Roadrunner's financial statements dating back to the beginning of 2014 were not reliable. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 3, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1044.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com ROYAL PIZZA: Faces "Ixcoy" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws ------------------------------------------------------------ DIMAS IXCOY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against ROYAL PIZZA OF THIRD AVENUE CORP. (d/b/a ROYAL PIZZA), ROYAL PIZZA 1 OF THIRD AVENUE CORP. (d/b/a ROYAL PIZZA), ADEM KANDIC and NATHANIEL KIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00454 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2017), was filed to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner. Defendants owned, operated, and/or controlled a pizzeria. Plaintiff is purportedly employed as a delivery worker. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 SA GEAR: Must Defend Against "Williamson" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEVE WILLIAMSON and RHONDA CHRISTINE LEMASTER, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. S.A. GEAR COMPANY, INC., AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., and AUTOZONE STORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15- CV-365-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.), District Judge Staci M. Yandle denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide and multi-state allegations. The case involves a class action filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants S.A. Gear Company, Inc., Autozone, Inc., Autozone Parts, Inc., and Autozone Stores, Inc. alleging that the Defendants manufactured, distributed, advertised and/or sold defective timing chain tensioners. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs' class claims cannot be certified because the claims would have to be litigated under the different consumer, fraud and warranty laws of 30 states. The Court opined that the cases relied upon by the Defendants in support of their motion were decided at the class certification stage, not in consideration of motions to dismiss and/or strike. The Court further opined that, whether a Plaintiff has fulfilled Rule 23, class action requirements is not an appropriate inquiry at the motion to dismiss and/or motion to strike stage because class determinations generally involve considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action. Hence, the Court denied the Defendants' motion. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated January 23, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/5Gb2x4 from Leagle.com. Rhonda Christine LeMaster, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory J. Pals, Driscoll Firm, P.C. & John J. Driscoll, Driscoll Firm, P.C.. S.A. Gear Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan H. Garside -- jgarside@foxgalvin.com -- Fox Galvin LLC & Sarah B. Mangelsdorf -- smangelsdorf@foxgalvin.com -- Fox Galvin LLC. AutoZone, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Jonathan D. Jay -- jjay@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Anne T. Regan -- aregan@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC & Michael R. Cashman -- mcashman@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Handley" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID HANDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in this collective action, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. fka SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a New York Domestic Business Corporation, Defendants, Case 3:17-cv-00097-JE (D. Or., January 20, 2017), contends that "Field Sales Manager" employees are: (i) entitled to unpaid wages from Defendant for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law, (ii) entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; (iii) entitled to declaratory relief; and (iv) entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant researches, develops and markets a variety of personal and business communications products throughout North America including handheld wireless phones, wireless communications infrastructure systems and enterprise communication systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Abbott Parks, Esq. NORTHWEST WAGELAW, LLC 9220 SW Barbur Blvd Ste 119-312 Portland, OR 97219-5428 Phone: (503) 295-0431 Fax: (503) 655-8244 E-mail: Gary.parks@northwestwagelaw.com SOHAB INC: Faces "Padron" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Osvaldo Padron, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Sohab Inc. d/b/a European Republic, Aziz Yosofi, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 2:17-cv-00502 (E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay non-exempt restaurant employees minimum wage and premium overtime pay for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 126 West Merrick Road, Freeport, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 SOUTHERN COMPANY: Monroe County Fund Files Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE SOUTHERN COMPANY, THOMAS A. FANNING, ART P. BEATTIE, EDWARD DAY, VI and G. EDISON HOLLAND, JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00241- MHC (N.D. Ga., January 20, 2017), arises out of the failure of the Defendants to keep a promise to complete the building of its "clean coal" plant in Kemper County, Mississippi by May 2014. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false statements resulting to its stocks trading at artificially inflated prices in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. The Southern Company is a utility holding company based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Herman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Monarch Tower, Suite 1650 3424 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: 404/504-6500 Fax: 404/504-6501 - and - Daniel S. Drosman, Esq. Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Phone: 619/231-1058 Fax: 619/231-7423 - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Phone: 313/578-1200 Fax: 313/578-1201 SOUTHERN COMPANY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of The Southern Company (NYSE: SO) from April 25, 2012, and October 29, 2013, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Southern Company investors under the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse information about the progress of the Kemper Plant, reassuring investors that the project would be completed by the critical May 2014 deadline, even after cost overruns and other delays began to materialize. Once the true details were made known to the investing public, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you have held Southern Company shares continuously prior to April 25, 2012, you may have standing to hold Southern Company harmless from the damage the officers and directors caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are a Southern Company shareholder and are interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. About Johnson & Weaver, LLP: Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonandweaver.com STINGRAY PRESSURE: Faces "Lackie" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Lackie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stingray Pressure Pumping LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00083- EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio., January 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay field mechanics employee's overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Stingray Pressure Pumping LLC own and operate an oil and gas field services company headquartered in St. Clairsville, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Nilges Draher, LLC 7266 Portage St. N.W. Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com TIME WARNER: Manigo et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned LOIS A. MANIGO, ORLANDO GUTIERREZ, PHILIP MARTINEZ, PATRICIA VALLADARESGALLEGOS, SHANA GILMORE, AND WARREN V. NICHOLS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. and TWC ADMINISTRATION, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06722- JFW-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on March 27, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., for an order certifying class and subclasses: Class: "all persons who, at any time in the 4 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final disposition or final judgment in this action, are/were employed by Defendants (one or more of them) as a non-exempt dispatcher in the state of California (Class Members); Late Meal Period Sub-Class: "all Class Members who, at any time in the 4 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final disposition or final judgment in this action, were required to start their first meal period later than the end of their fifth consecutive hour of work on days in which they worked at least 6 hours"; Second Meal Period Sub-Class: "all Class Members who, at any time in the 4 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final disposition or final judgment in this action, were not permitted to take a second meal period on days in which they worked at least 10 hours"; Rest Period Sub-Class: "all Class Members who, at any time in the 4 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final disposition or final judgment in this action, were not provided legally complaint rest breaks by Defendants in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7"; Itemized Wage Statements Sub-Class: "all Class Members who, at any time in the 4 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final disposition or final judgment in this action, were not provided accurate itemized wage statements in accordance with California Labor Code section 226(a) and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders"; Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class: "all Class Members who are no longer employed by Defendants, in that they quit or were discharged from employment, and who were not paid all wages earned and owed in a timely manner as required by California Labor Code section 203". Off-the-Clock Sub-Class: "all Class Members who, at any time in the 4 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final disposition or final judgment in this action, were not compensated for time spent booting up and shutting down computer software before and after their reported work times, resulting in work performed off-the-clock". The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to enter an order: 1. designating Plaintiffs as the representatives of the class; and 2. appointing WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC and THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS, APC as counsel for the class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PqhLX2LB The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rhonda H. Wills, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Yorktown, Suite 570 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 528 4455 Facsimile: (713) 528 2047 E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com - and - George P. Moschopoulos, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS, APC 34197 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100 Dana Point, CA 92629 Telephone: (714) 904 1669 Facsimile: (949) 272 0428 E-mail: georgem@logmapc.com TRUMP NATIONAL: Judge Awards $5.7MM Judgment in Golf Club Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports that a federal judge has awarded a group of golf club members a $5.7 million judgment against the Trump Organization's golf club in Jupiter. The property is owned by President Donald Trump, although he turned over control of his companies to his two oldest sons. Eric Trump testified at the trial in 2016. The plaintiff attorneys deposed Donald Trump for the case. A class action of golf club members, led by Norman Hirsch, Matthew Dwyer and Ralph Willard, filed the complaint against Jupiter Golf Club, doing business as the Trump National Golf Club Jupiter, and RBF LLC, doing business as the Ritz-Carlton Golf Club & Spa Jupiter, in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach in 2013. Trump purchased the property from Ritz-Carlton in 2012. Attorney Herman Joseph Russomanno, of Russomanno & Borrello in Miami, said the Trump National Golf Club Jupiter plans to appeal the court's ruling. The plaintiff class was represented by Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman attorneys Bradley James Edwards -- brad@pathtojustice.com -- Seth Michael Lehrman -- seth@pathtojustice.com -- Steven R. Jaffe -- steve@pathtojustice.com -- and Mark S. Fistos -- mark@pathtojustice.com Mr. Lehrman said he doesn't believe the Trump Organization will appeal. The result of the case should have been obvious to anyone who watched the trial, he said. "We expect that both the Trump Organization and President Trump have more significant things to attend to," Mr. Lehrman said. "We believe they are committed to the rule of law, they will do the right thing and ensure a just result that fully satisfies the judgment." The plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Trump's company failed to refund their club membership deposits under the terms of their original agreements with Ritz-Carlton. There are 65 class members who could collect under the judgment. These people had previously notified the Ritz-Carlton that they wanted to resign their membership, but they were not allowed to leave until new members signed up to replace them, so they had to continue paying dues. They would be refunded once they left, although that could take a year or more. "The plan documents, as property interpreted, were intended to provide club members on the resignation list with continuing right to use the club facilities until their membership was reissued to a new member, provided the club member was otherwise in good standing with the club," U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled on Feb. 1. The people who signed up for refundable memberships under the Ritz-Carlton Golf Club & Spa Jupiter were entitled to demand a refund of their deposit within 30 days if the club recalled their membership, according to their membership agreements. Trump personally held a town hall meeting at the club in December 2012 to discuss changes to its membership, the ruling said. He then sent letters to members who had planned to resign, asking them to either opt in at a reduced rate for three years; opt out and pay higher dues, but keep their rights to a refund; or remain on the resignation waiting list, but pay no club dues and have no club access. The plaintiff class chose the third option. "As the owner of the club, I do not want them to utilize the club nor do I want their dues," Mr. Trump said in the 2012 letter. "In other words . . . if you choose to remain on the resignation list, you're out." Starting on Jan. 1, 2013, members of the class on the resignation waiting list were denied access to the club, regardless of their willingness to pay dues. But in February 2013, the Trump National Golf Club Jupiter decided to continue charging the plaintiffs dues while still not giving them access to the club, the judge ruled. Judge Marra ruled that this action constituted a recall of their membership and entitled them to refunds of their deposits. "By categorically denying all class members all rights to club access because they remained on the resignation waiting list as of December 31, 2012, defendant revoked or cancelled their memberships, thus recalling their memberships," he ruled. "Under their membership agreements, plaintiffs and the class members were entitled to refunds of their deposits within 30 days of that date, which to date defendant has failed to provide. Because defendant did not refund class members' deposits by January 30, 2013, it committed a material breach of the membership agreement." The judge ruled Trump National Golf Club Jupiter assumed the obligation to refund the members when it acquired the club. Judge Marra also ruled that plaintiffs had no obligation to pay dues or fees to the club once it denied them access to the club. The judgment reflected $4.85 million in refundable deposits from the member class, plus interest. TWO JINNS: Bid for Initial Settlement Approval Under Submission --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit styled Gayla Shelby, the Plaintiff v. Two JInns, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-03794-AB-GJS (C.D. Cal.), taking Plaintiff's motion for settlement approval of class action settlement preliminary approval under submission. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eEm3o9TO The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Robert Bacon LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St Ste 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 7104 Telephone: (888) 595 9111 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert W Hicks ROBERT W. HICKS & ASSOCIATES 600 W Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236 3403 Facsimile: (619) 236 3413 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Arbitration in EATS Courier Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that Uber Technologies Inc. on Jan. 31 asked a New York federal court to arbitrate Fair Labor Standards Act claims in a putative class action from bicycle couriers for its Uber EATS service, citing language from an arbitration agreement. Matthew Burgos and others say that Uber EATS and its precursor, Uber RUSH -- which deliver food from restaurants to a customer's door -- misclassified couriers as independent contractors and don't pay them minimum wage, in violation of the FLSA. But Uber on Jan. 31 said the couriers had already agreed to individually arbitrate any claims arising out of their work for the company, citing an arbitration provision the couriers accepted before gaining access to the app that allows them to start working. "Because the parties entered into a valid contract requiring the submission of any disputes arising out of plaintiffs' relationship with defendants to be decided in arbitration on an individual basis, and this dispute falls within the scope of that agreement, this court should order plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims against defendants, dismiss plaintiffs' claims, and strike plaintiffs' class and collective allegations," the motion to compel arbitration says. The suit, filed in November, alleges a slew of labor violations, including that Uber misclassifies couriers as independent contractors because they aren't free from the company's control and direction. Plaintiffs' attorney Richard Garbarini said at the time that he believed it is the first suit challenging Uber's courier classification methods, though Uber has previously litigated the independent contractor issue with drivers. Mr. Burgos' complaint says that messengers meet all nine U.S. Department of Labor indicators as to whether they are employees, such as requirements to follow rules and accept assignments. Couriers like Burgos were also told at training that they would be "deactivated" if Uber found out they were working for another service, according to the complaint. Uber's motion to compel arbitration says that Mr. Burgos and the other four named plaintiffs in the suit all accepted arbitration agreements, including an operative agreement from August. That agreement includes an arbitration provision "which broadly requires delivery partners, if they do not opt out, to individually arbitrate all disputes arising out of or related to the agreement or their relationship with Uber," the motion says. While there is a way to opt out of the provision, the plaintiffs have not, Uber added. In asking the court to find in favor of arbitration, Uber pointed to past cases in which it was sued. "Federal courts around the nation, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have all recently reached this same conclusion when evaluating a similar arbitration provision in cases brought against Uber," the Jan. 31 motion reads. "In each case, the court enforced the arbitration provisions, and granted Uber's motions to compel individual arbitration." Uber declined to comment on Feb. 1. The drivers are represented by Richard M. Garbarini of Garbarini Fitzgerald PC. Uber is represented by Andrew M. Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- and Kevin R. Vozzo -- kvozzo@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC. The case is Matthew Burgos v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., case number 1:16-cv-08512, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Drivers' Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Rosenblatt and Edvard Pettersson, writing for Bloomberg News, report that Uber Technologies Inc. reached a settlement offering its drivers an average of about a buck apiece to dispense with alleged labor-code violations that their lawyer claimed might have been worth billions of dollars. The ride-hailing company, along with the drivers' lawyer, asked a state judge in Los Angeles Feb. 1 to approve a $7.75 million agreement to resolve claims stemming from its refusal to give California drivers the protections and benefits of employees. The accord allows Uber to keep classifying the drivers as independent contractors. The claims by Steven Price, who sought to represent as many as 1.6 million California drivers in a class action, were brought under the state's so-called bounty hunter law, which gives employees the right to step into the shoes of the state labor secretary to bring enforcement actions. Under the 2004 Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, the state keeps 75 percent of any penalties won. The remaining 25 percent is a reward for the workers who bring the case. Thousands of such lawsuits have been filed in the past 12 years. The Price case poses a special threat to Uber. The company in September won an appeals court ruling that potentially eviscerated a more advanced class action in San Francisco federal court by forcing the vast majority of 385,000 California and Massachusetts drivers in the case to proceed through arbitration one at a time. But PAGA claims, like those filed by Price in state court, can't be shunted into arbitration. Christopher Morosoff, a lawyer representing Price, said at a June hearing in San Francisco that his case cited 17 labor code violations, compared with just two claims -- tips and mileage -- in the federal case for which the PAGA penalties were estimated at $1 billion by the state agency that oversees labor code enforcement. 'Do the Math' "Do the math there," he told U.S. District Judge Edward Chen at the time. "The numbers may be staggering, and they may be in the billions, and you may not want to look at them, but they are real." In the Feb. 1 filing, Mr. Morosoff and attorneys for Uber urged the Los Angeles judge to approve the accord, calling it a "reasonable and fair compromise" and "the largest PAGA settlement ever, exceeding all other known PAGA settlements by millions of dollars." "This settlement appropriately balances the objective of the PAGA statute and the risks of litigation posed to each side, while avoiding an unjust result," they wrote. PAGA Penalties After attorney fees and administration costs are deducted, the agreement provides for about $1.7 million to paid to drivers and earmarks about $2.9 million in PAGA penalties for California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The amount each driver gets will depend on how many weeks they have actively driven for Uber. An Uber spokeswoman said the company is pleased with the settlement and looks forward to resolving other cases. Mr. Morosoff didn't immediately respond to a call seeking comment. Uber said in a court filing that the Price settlement would resolve PAGA claims of drivers who used its app from July 8, 2013, until the date a Los Angles judge signs off on the deal. Court approval of the accord isn't a sure thing. In the San Francisco case, which would have resolved claims for tips and mileage valued by the drivers' lawyer at $852 million, Judge Chen rejected a $100 million settlement in August. He said the $1 million allotted to resolve PAGA claims was inadequate in light of those claims being valued at as much as $1 billion. Overtime Claims Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer representing drivers in the San Francisco case, was criticized by Morosoff, who said she folded too easily to Uber in her settlement on minimum-wage and overtime claims, which the deal valued at zero. Ms. Liss-Riordan, complaining that she was left in the dark about the Price settlement until it was first disclosed in November, tried unsuccessfully to get Judge Chen to try to wrestle the PAGA claims away from the Los Angeles case so she could pursue them in San Francisco. Judge Chen said in an order that he was reluctant to interfere "with a state court's resolution of what is, after all, a state law issue." 'Forum Shopping' Ms. Liss-Riordan said the Price settlement is evidence of Uber's "forum shopping," testing different courts to find the most favorable outcome. "It is looking for a judge who will approve a far smaller settlement than I had last year, which the federal court declined to approve," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote in an e-mail. "Now Uber is trying to get a settlement approved in state court for a lower amount for the PAGA claims than Judge Chen said he would not approve, but without the drivers getting the benefit of the far larger settlement that I was able to negotiate." Charlotte Garden, a Seattle University associate law professor who has followed the Uber litigation, called the settlement a "bargain" for Uber, saying it appears to be proportionally smaller than the sum than Chen signaled that he would have approved in the San Francisco case. The professor also said that if the Price settlement is approved, it will advance the company's "divide and conquer" approach to driver lawsuits. It may reduce the threat of the San Francisco lawsuit to the "nuisance value" of fighting potentially thousands of individual drivers in arbitration, she said. While that cost could still be considerable because Uber has committed to covering the expenses of arbitration, "it will almost certainly be less than a case with a viable path towards litigating all the drivers' claims on an aggregate basis," Ms. Garden said. The Los Angeles case is Price v. Uber Technologies Inc., BC554512, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Los Angeles). The San Francisco case is O'Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., 13-cv- 03826, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Launch Class Action in Ontario --------------------------------------------------------- Sara Tatelman, writing for Benefits Canada, reports that drivers who work for Uber Technologies Inc. in Ontario have launched a class action lawsuit arguing the company has misclassified them as independent contractors and should instead treat them as employees. According to the statement of claim, the plaintiffs are asking for $200 million in damages, plus $2,000 for legal fees. They're also asking for reimbursement for any Canada Pension Plan and employment insurance contributions they've made as independent contractors that Uber should have made as their employer. None of the allegations have been proven in court. The lawsuit followed Uber's move to "unilaterally" change the terms for its Uber Eats drivers, lowering their compensation by 40 to 60 per cent, says Stephen Gillman -- stephen@stlawyers.ca -- a lawyer at Samfiru Tumarkin LLP in Toronto who's representing the drivers. "The drivers were forced to agree to a contract, in some cases in the middle of an order, that lowered their compensation." The class action, which represents all Uber drivers who work or have worked in Ontario since 2012, alleges "the duties performed by the class members and the supervision and control imposed on the class members by Uber creates an employment relationship with Uber." It notes Uber provides training, screens drivers, ensures their vehicles meet specific requirements, suspends those whose vehicles aren't up to par, sets prices and compensation and handles any complaints about drivers, among other employer responsibilities. Because Uber has so much control over working conditions, drivers should be considered employees not independent contractors, the statement of claim argues. As such, the plaintiffs allege Uber must abide by Ontario's Employment Standards Act by paying the minimum wage and providing overtime, vacation and public holiday pay; advise drivers of their entitlement to those payments; and accurately track their hours. "In order to receive a livable wage, [chief plaintiff David] Heller was required to work 40-50 hours per week without receiving the minimum wage, contrary to his contractual terms," the statement of claim alleges. It also points out drivers are "low- skilled employees under the direct control and supervision of the defendants" who rely on Uber to inform them of their employee status and pay eligibility. In October 2016, the Central London Employment Tribunal in England ruled Uber drivers are employees, not independent contractors. "Drivers will have holiday pay, statutory sick pay and should be paid the minimum amount for what their hours are if they're not achieving the incomes that are acceptable under the mandate of the law," Steve Garelick, branch secretary of professional drivers at the GMB union in London, told Benefits Canada in November. Similar lawsuits have emerged throughout the United States with varying results, Mr. Gillman notes. "We're confident [Canada's] laws will support our position," he says. UNITED STATES: Faces 40+ Lawsuits Over Trump Immigration Order -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that lawyers have tossed everything but the kitchen sink at President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration. More than 40 lawsuits have been filed since Trump first signed the order on Jan. 27 suspending entry to the United States for individuals from seven predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa. The cases range from habeas corpus petitions on behalf of travelers to class actions backed by immigration and civil rights groups to suits that leverage the credibility -- and resources -- of state governments in Washington, Virginia, Massachusetts and New York. They assert violations of the U.S. Constitution and statutes including the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. What looks like legal chaos on the surface may have an upside for advocates by establishing more avenues to a successful outcome. With little active coordination, at least in the initial phases, lawyers across the country have been testing the legal theories that may get them past two main hurdles -- standing and the reluctance of courts to second-guess executive branch decisions related to national security. Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which has partnered with organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union on two class actions, said on Feb. 2 that the flurry of activity is starting to coalesce. "It's important for us to coordinate our efforts and see who's already challenging what issues," Mr. Adams said. "That being said, it has happened so quickly, and so many people are experiencing immediate harm, it's inevitable you'll have overlapping lawsuits because you have attorneys across the country trying to protect their clients." The bulk of cases filed so far have been habeas corpus petitions, brought over the weekend after immigrants were detained or deported at U.S. airports. Many of those have been voluntarily dismissed, presumably because the petitioner has since been released. Other suits, brought by advocacy groups like the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the American Immigration Council, seek to represent a class of individuals who have been or could be impacted from the order. Framing their suits as class actions allows advocates to obtain rulings with broader impact. On Jan. 28, for example, U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in the Eastern District of New York granted an emergency motion to stay removals as part of a class action brought by the ACLU. At least five class actions have been filed, some involving the same advocacy groups. That's because so many people have been affected, Mr. Adams said. "The executive order is wreaking havoc in a lot of different contexts," he said. "It's not just one group of individuals, and every group of individuals presents its own issues." One of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project's class actions, for instance, seeks to represent individuals whose visa applications were suspended due to the order. The major hurdle for class actions in the immigration context is establishing that the lead plaintiffs behind the case have legal standing to sue in federal courts, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School. One tactic that's already being employed in several suits is finding a U.S. citizen to sue on behalf of their loved ones, instead of litigating directly on behalf of foreign nationals. In a class action filed on Jan. 30 by three immigration groups, the lead plaintiffs are two U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident who live in Washington and California. They are joined in the case by their minor children, who are in the process of getting an immigrant visa but live in one of the seven countries identified in Trump's order. U.S. citizens make better plaintiffs, acknowledged Mary Kenney, senior staff attorney at the American Immigration Council. "Certainly the U.S. citizen and LPR plaintiffs in the United States have significant ties and will not have standing issues," Kenney said. But she also insisted they have been harmed by the order, which "is tearing families apart." Plaintiffs lawyers also could point to the order as an "anti- Muslim ban" in order to allege a policy common to all class members, said Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California, Davis, School of Law. Lawyers advanced a similar argument in a class action against Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio to demonstrate that his office racially profiled Latinos in its patrols. Many of the class actions challenging Trump's order use the term "anti-Muslim ban" in their complaints. (Trump has insisted that his order "is not a Muslim ban.") In a case brought on Jan. 30 by the state of Washington, Attorney General Bob Ferguson cited the numbers of employees at Microsoft, Expedia and Amazon with temporary work visas who come from the seven countries at issue in the order. Raising the economic impact of the order could be designed to overcome standing issues, said Geoffrey Hoffman, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Houston Law Center. In a sense it's taking a lesson from the AGs who repeatedly challenged actions from the Obama administration. Attorneys general from 26 states overcame a similar standing hurdle in their case against federal policies giving legal status to 4 million immigrants. "They alleged an economic connection to the executive agency's actions to their citizens or residents in their respective states," Mr. Hoffman said. "So similarly here, you're going to have a real connection also to the economic impact of these executive actions on the state." In a supplemental brief filed on Feb. 1, Mr. Ferguson cited Texas v. United States in arguing that the state of Washington had standing due to lost tax revenues and other costs. Beyond standing, legal experts predict that the federal government will assert a hard-to-penetrate national security defense. Trump's order invokes the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions allowing the president to prohibit entry into the United States of foreign nationals to protect U.S. interests. And immigration falls under the plenary power doctrine, which holds that the legislative and executive branches, not the courts, have the power to regulate immigration. "I could see the federal government saying, 'There's no room for judicial review here,'" Mr. Johnson said. "The doctrine is still good law, and this may give the Supreme Court in the end a chance to revisit this law." But the powers of the president aren't unlimited. Many of the lawsuits cite other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act designed to prevent discrimination in the issuance of visas, plus numerous constitutional violations that could challenge the president's powers. "Even though the president has broad powers, that power is not unlimited," Mr. Hoffman said. "You have to keep in mind we still have limitations: the First Amendment, due process, equal protection, retroactivity -- a lot of issues that I think can be brought to bear." UNITED STATES: Settlement in "Greenwood" Suit Has Initial Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Federal Claims granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement in the case captioned ROSALIE GREENWOOD, et al., Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 10-15L (Fed. Cl.). The rails-to-trails case arises from the conversion of a railroad corridor in Lawrence County, Arkansas to a recreational trail. The action was brought on behalf of 53 landowners who collectively own 78 parcels of land along the 6.70-mile corridor. The United States and class counsel have reached an agreement regarding the general terms of a settlement. The proposed settlement provides payments in connection with the alleged taking of the plaintiffs' property for the creation of a trail. Under the settlement, class members would receive a total of $1,025,595.00, of which $611,795.00 is principal for the value of the land allegedly taken and $413,800.00 is interest as of August 31, 2016. The proposed settlement does not include statutory attorneys' fees or costs. On December 1, 2016, class counsel filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, approval of notice to class members regarding the proposed class action settlement, and request to set a date for public hearing under RCFC 23(e). The government did not oppose preliminary approval of the class action settlement but asked the Court to adopt the government's proposed notice plan and forms. After a review of the parties' proposed notice plans and forms, the Court approved the government's version of the notice and forms with the exception of references to the proposed website and the references to class counsel's request for contingent fees on the grounds that the Court understands that class counsel is not seeking fees under the "common fund" doctrine. In addition, the approved notice adopts the parties' agreed-upon proposal that the Court conduct the fairness hearing telephonically with class counsel present at a location that is convenient to class members who wish to participate in person. The Court scheduled a fairness hearing to take place on March 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM eastern time. The fairness hearing shall be held over the phone. A full-text copy of the Court's January 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/12HIOt from Leagle.com. ROSALIE GREENWOOD, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald -- wald@swm.legal -- Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC. USA, Defendant, represented by Sean Christian Duffy, U.S. Department of Justice. UNITED STATES: Northwest Immigrants Rights Project Files Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Graf, writing for KING 5, reports that the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project filed a federal class-action lawsuit challenging President Trump's immigration order on behalf of several immigrant families. Among the plaintiffs is Reema Dahman, who came to Seattle from Syria back in 2012. She's now a permanent, lawful resident of the United States. But Reema says her sixteen-year-old son is now stranded in the war-torn country, despite the fact that Reema had already successfully filed a visa petition on her son's behalf. "When the executive order was issued, that changed everything," said Dahman, speaking to KING 5 with the help of a translator. The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has been working around the clock to help families like Reema's, ever since the executive order that suspended immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The order also includes an indefinite ban of refugees from Syria. "In the beginning I was in disbelief, I could not believe this would go through, I thought there was no way a President would do that," said Dahman. The class-action lawsuit filed on Jan. 30 asks a federal judge to intervene so that families are not torn apart. "We are getting hundreds and hundreds of calls from from individuals seeking help," said Matt Adams, the legal director of The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Adams said Reema's sixteen-year-old son was in the final stages of the process needed to secure his visa. He was waiting for his immigrant visa interview to be scheduled, according to court documents. "So Reema is a lawful permanent resident, she immigrated through her U.S. citizen spouse," said Adams. "But since he was not the biological father of her sixteen-year-old son, in the process that they initially filed, he had not filed for that child. And so when Reema came here and became a lawful permanent resident, she filed for her son. The visa petition was approved, so then they followed through and submitted the application to the consulate to finish the process, and now all of a sudden the announcement comes out that all visa applications are immediately suspended from Syria. For Reema, it's heartbreaking news. She held back tears while speaking about her son, because she worries about his safety in Syria. "I have hope, because this is America," she said. KING 5 asked whether she would consider going back to Syria to be with her son, who is now living with his grandmother. The problem is that Reema has two other sons who are just eight and nine years old -- and they are already here in Seattle. She says she wouldn't want to bring them back to a war zone as well. The class-action lawsuit calls President Trump's immigration order unlawful and discriminatory. The lawsuit specifically asks the courts to stop the part of the order that impacts people who have already gone through the "lengthy and rigorous immigrant visa process", saying a judge needs to intervene in order to protect the integrity of the United States' immigrant visa process "I think what stands out the most is that this order is in blatant disregard of the immigration laws and the constitution," said Adams. "And that's what this lawsuit is all about, forcing the President to back down and basically revoke his unlawful order." The class-action lawsuit comes on the heels of a separate federal suit filed by Washington state's attorney general. The Trump administration has defended the immigration order, saying it's about keeping bad people with bad intentions out of the United States. US METALS: Carteret Residents File Class Action Over Contaminants ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Muscavage, writing for myCentralJersey.com, reports that five years after a metal smelting company agreed to investigate and clean up potential contamination in the yards of nearby homes, some borough residents began receiving letters from the company informing them that their properties contain contaminants above New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's clean-up and action levels. Some Carteret residents have entered into a class-action lawsuit, which was filed on Jan. 30 and has a class area defined as several thousand properties, alleging that U.S. Metal Refining Company, Amax Realty and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold failed to recognize the "true nature and extent" of the contaminants or properly notify residents of the extent of the contaminants. "This type of pollution can have a crushing blow on property value. People are invested in their homes and that loss of value should be reimbursed by the polluter," said Steven German, attorney for the plaintiffs. "People are worried about their health, they're worried about their children's health. They hear about Flint, and they read about lead paint, and they hear all the terrible things that lead can do to children." According to the letters sent out by U.S. Metal Refining Company, arsenic and lead both exceeded the clean-up levels for soil established by the NJDEP. In one letter, three tests showed arsenic at a quantity above the clean-up level of 19 parts per million; the highest level in the tests was more than 30 parts per million. The letter also showed tests exceeding the clean-up level of lead of 400 parts per million. One test showed a property's lead levels to be over 1,500 parts per million -- more than three times higher than the clean-up level established by the DEP. The letter sent to residents by U.S. Metals Refining Company recommended that the residents allow its soil project to remove the contaminated yard soil in accordance to DEP requirements. The company said they will "replace the yard soil removed with clean soil and will restore affected landscaping." It also said the project will come at no cost to the taxpayers, but the company did not admit any wrongdoing in the letter. On Jan. 31, Mayor Daniel Reiman announced to area residents that U.S. Metals Refining Company will begin testing additional properties within the borough. The soil testing will determine whether the environmental impacts from the company's former smelting operations extend further than originally believed by the company, according to his statement. "U.S. Metals has acknowledged that their past operation in Carteret has impacted soil around their former plant. They will expand the scope of their investigation based upon test results from previous soil samples that were taken from properties within the original sample area," Mr. Reiman said. "The results have caused them to question whether their original efforts were comprehensive enough. "We have insisted all along that they conduct a complete and thorough environmental impact investigation and to clean-up any contamination caused by their former operations and they are now beginning to do that." In 2012, Carteret made an agreement with the owner of metals- refining factory to ensure the company investigates and cleans up potential contamination in the yards of nearby homes and other areas. The agreement came after Carteret filed a required notice of its intent to sue the owners of the former U.S. Metals Refining Company to ensure the company investigated toxic metal contamination. The initial round of testing included about 60 properties east of Roosevelt Avenue near Carteret's southeastern border with Woodbridge, according to the statement. U.S. Metals Refining Company operated a copper and fine metals smelting facility along the Arthur Kill from 1906 until 1986 when it was closed, according to Mr. Reiman's letter. The company was eventually acquired by Freeport-McMoRan Inc. As the successor company of U.S. Metals, Freeport-McMoRan is still liable for the costs associated with the investigation and remediation, according to Mr. Reiman. At the time of the agreement, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold issued a statement reported by USA TODAY that the company is pleased to have reached the agreement "and will now be able to focus our attention on the Carteret soil testing and replacement program." Amax Realty, the third defendant in the class-action lawsuit, owned or operated a portion of the site associated to the smelting contaminants, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against U.S. Metals Refining Company and the other entities claim that they are suffering from fear of adverse health effects, including cancer, issues with childhood physical, mental and cognitive development and other serious illnesses, as a result of the contaminants from the refining companies. VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Teleflex Deal --------------------------------------------------------- Sam Schaust, writing for TwinCities Business, reports that Vascular Solutions shareholder Paul Parshall is suing the Maple Grove-based company claiming it made a poor deal when it agreed to be purchased by Teleflex for $1 billion. In documents filed on Feb. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Mr. Parshall called the $56-per-share deal "inadequate," adding that it was preferential to Vascular Solutions' executive team, including CEO Howard Root who is said to receive over $8 million if the acquisition is completed. When the acquisition was announced in December, Mr. Root noted one reason for selling Vascular Solutions was over concern of falling victim to another federal government investigation. "I am not willing to assume much longer the personal risk associated with being the CEO of a public, medical-device company," he said. After several years in court and $25 million spent fighting the charges, Vascular Solutions was cleared in February 2016 of alleged "off-label" promotions of its products. Mr. Root afterward called the entire process "obscene" and wrote a book about his experience. Concerning the recent lawsuit, Mr. Root told TCB, "This type of lawsuit is filed in virtually every sale of a public company transaction. It has no merit and we'll prove it." Mr. Parshall is seeking class action certification with the hope of stopping the proposed acquisition. (Vascular Solutions would be compelled to pay Teleflex a $35 million termination fee if the deal falls through.) Citing Vascular Solutions' double-digit year-over-year sales growth in recent quarters, the plaintiff believes "the intrinsic value of the company is materially in excess" of the $1 billion offer. To back up his claim, Mr. Parshall said Vascular Solutions violated the Securities Exchange Act by omitting material information from the proxy statement it filed with the SEC. By not including information, such as capital expenditures, taxes, and stock-based compensation in the filing, Mr. Parshall claimed the proxy statement is rendered as "false and misleading." Moreover, the plaintiff said the company and its shareholders should be willing to solicit other, potentially better, offers, court filings indicate. "It's become increasingly common for lawsuits to be brought whenever there is a significant acquisition, either against the acquiring company or the acquired company," said David Pearson -- dpearson@winthrop.com -- shareholder at Minneapolis-based law firm Winthrop and Weinstine. "Typically these lawsuits are unsuccessful. The courts give a significant amount of deference to boards of directors and management in making decisions regarding mergers and acquisitions. It's a fairly high standard that has to be met in order to block a proposed merger acquisition, so usually these cases are either dismissed because they have no merit or the parties reach some type of settlement." Vascular Solutions said the plaintiff's claims are "without merit" in an SEC filing on Feb. 1. Mr. Parshall has a history of suing companies that he owns shares in. He has filed at least 22 cases against companies dating back to 1993. In 1996, he was permanently enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah for violations against the Securities Act. In addition to termination of the deal, Mr. Parshall is seeking an unspecified amount in damages, as well as a "reasonable allowance" to cover legal fees. VISTA OUTDOOR: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Vista Outdoor Inc. securities between August 11, 2016 and January 13, 2017. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements as well as failed to disclose material, adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including that the Company was experiencing revenue and gross margin declines and that the Company would begin the impairment assessment for its Outdoor Products segment's reporting units in the third quarter of 2017. On January 12, 2017, Vista disclosed that it expects a material asset impairment charge of approximately $400 - $450 million due to its Hunting and Shooting Accessories reporting unit in the third quarter of its fiscal year 2017. On this news, Vista shares declined $8.21 per share to close at $29.58 on January 12, 2017. On January 13, 2017, Vista disclosed that the President of its Outdoor Products segment, which includes the Hunting and Shooting Accessories unit, resigned from his position. On this news, Vista shares declined $0.88 per share to close at $28.70 on January 13, 2017. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Vista Outdoor securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss or continue to hold shares purchased prior to the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact J. Brandon Walker, Esq. by email at -- investigations@bespc.com --, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm, concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information concerning the Vista Outdoor lawsuit, please go to www.bespc.com/vista-outdoor-inc VOLKSWAGEN: Resists Granting Settlement to EU Car Owners -------------------------------------------------------- Patrick McGee at Financial Times reports when Volkswagen pleaded guilty in January to criminal charges in the US over the German carmaker's diesel emissions scandal, the company's great hope was that it would be able to move on and focus on an ambitious strategy to become a leader in electric vehicles by 2025. But in Europe, where almost 9m of the 11m VW diesel cars equipped with test-cheating software were sold, consumer litigation is just beginning. Tens of thousands of VW car owners are demanding compensation -- and thereby to be treated in the same manner as their counterparts in North America, where the scandal has cost the company more than $20bn. The latest part of this European effort will take place on Monday, when a London-based court holds a preliminary hearing on a case brought on behalf of more than 20,000 UK owners of VW cars. However, having offered compensation and vehicle buybacks to US car owners caught up in the emissions affair, VW is strongly resisting calls by the European Commission and some other EU politicians for similar steps in Europe. And differences between US and EU legal systems mean the company is unlikely in Europe to face anything like the $21bn of scandal-related expenses it has run up in North America. In the US, the case against VW was close to overwhelming. In September 2015 VW admitted it had installed illegal software dubbed a defeat device in about 500,000 diesel cars, which served to understate emissions of harmful nitrogen oxides in official tests. The Washington-based Environmental Protection Agency sued VW, while hundreds of legal complaints by aggrieved US car owners were turned into one large case that amounted to a de facto class action lawsuit. A court in California overseeing this civil litigation demanded VW get the affected vehicles off the road as soon as possible, and because the company had no viable fix for them it was forced to offer a car buyback to about 480,000 owners of 2-litre diesel vehicles. In addition, car owners were offered at least $5,100 each. But in Europe the legal position is far more nuanced. VW is in the peculiar position of having admitted to installing cheat software in almost 9m diesel cars -- while at the same time maintaining the technology did not violate EU laws. The problem for any lawyer fighting for damages is that, even though VW's cheat software falls within the colloquial meaning of an illegal defeat device -- anything intended to circumvent a vehicle emissions test -- it is less clear the technology breaches the EU's technical definition. The applicable EU laws contained in a 2007 regulation defining illegal defeat devices refer to any element of design which alters "any part of the emission control system? . . . [during] normal vehicle operation and use". One person familiar with VW's legal strategy, who declined to be identified, said the company's software was an "inter-engine measure". In other words, the technology affected nitrous oxide (NOx) discharges before they reached the emission control system. Furthermore, the software was activated in test conditions in a laboratory, not during "normal" use on the road. Meanwhile, while VW concedes its diesel cars could not pass strict US NOx emissions tests without cheating, the company argues that its European vehicles could in fact pass EU equivalents, which are less onerous. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Reaches Settlement with FTC in Emissions Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement on Feb. 1 that requires Volkswagen Group of America to fully compensate consumers who purchased 3.0-liter TDI diesel vehicles through a combination of repairs, additional monetary compensation, and buybacks for certain models. Under the federal court order, owners of older vehicles (model years 2009-2012) will be able to sell their car back to Volkswagen at favorable prices and obtain full compensation for their losses. Consumers are eligible to receive approximately $26,000 to $58,000 for a buyback, depending on the model, mileage, and trim of the car. These owners can also opt to keep their cars and receive an emissions modification that would improve their vehicle's emissions, if a modification is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. Consumers receiving an emissions modification will also receive monetary compensation. For owners and lessees of newer vehicles (model years 2013-2016) Volkswagen is expected to obtain regulatory approval for an emissions repair that brings the cars into full compliance with originally certified emission standards and does not materially reduce the performance of the vehicle. If Volkswagen obtains EPA and CARB approval within the timeframe in the FTC Order, consumers will receive this repair and additional monetary compensation ranging from approximately $8,500 to $17,600. This means consumers with newer vehicles will receive the car they thought they purchased -- plus a substantial additional payment. If an emissions repair is not available under the timeframe in the FTC order, then Volkswagen must offer to buy back those models and provide lease terminations. Certain consumers who leased an affected vehicle are eligible for substantial compensation. Options for lessees vary based on make, model, model year, and the availability of approved emissions modifications or repairs. Certain owners who sold their TDI vehicles after the Volkswagen defeat device issue became public are also eligible for compensation. The order will return more than a billion dollars to consumers, with the total amount depending on future events. If no emissions repair is approved and if the company must therefore offer buybacks for all 3.0-liter TDI models, Volkswagen may have to pay as much as the full $4 billion judgment reflected in the order. If an emissions repair is approved, the Commission expects consumers to receive in excess of $1.25 billion from the 3.0-liter vehicle settlement. This amount includes a contribution from Bosch, which manufactured the defeat device. The Commission previously obtained a $10 billion judgment to compensate the larger group of consumers who had 2.0-liter TDI Volkswagen cars. Under the FTC settlement, Volkswagen also will pay the cost of administering the entire settlement program, including vehicle repairs, notifications, and other logistics. The FTC order also includes generous loan forgiveness provisions for consumers eligible for buybacks, additional limited warranties and lemon law-type protections for consumers eligible to receive emissions modifications or repairs, special protections for those serving in the armed forces, and special protections for consumers in rural areas who may be far from the nearest dealer. The order also requires an independent, court-appointed claims supervisor to monitor Volkswagen's compliance with stringent claims process deadlines. The FTC sued Volkswagen in March, charging that the company deceived consumers with its advertising campaign used to promote its supposedly "Clean Diesel" Volkswagens and Audis, which falsely claimed that the cars were low-emission, environmentally friendly, met emissions standards, and would maintain a high resale value. This order completes the FTC's case against Volkswagen by ensuring that all consumers who purchased a TDI diesel engine vehicle will be fully compensated for their losses. In a companion matter, hundreds of private actions have submitted a proposed class action settlement consistent with the FTC's order. A related settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) resolves the Clean Air Act violations those agencies alleged. Consumers can determine if they are eligible for compensation, and if so for how much at VWCourtSettlement.com and AudiCourtSettlement.com. They can also use these websites to submit claims, make appointments, and receive updates. Monetary relief will become available when the DOJ/EPA and private settlements become final. The Commission vote approving the proposed stipulated order was 3- 0. It is subject to court approval. The FTC filed the proposed stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge. The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about consumer topics and file a consumer complaint online or by calling 1-877- FTC-HELP (382-4357). VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Second Class Action in UK Over Emissions ------------------------------------------------------------- John Kirwan, writing for MotorTrader.com, reports that Volkswagen is facing another group action in the UK over the emissions issue. It was filed by Car Emissions Lawyers in the High Court in January 2016. It followed another group action filed by Harcus Sinclair UK, also in January. Car Emissions Lawyers said it was using the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 to try and secure claimants discounts on the purchase price of affected Volkswagen, SEAT, Skoda and Audi vehicles. It said the legislation provided consumers with the right to discounts of up to 100% on the value of purchases that were made based on misleading practices. To be eligible it said claimants must have purchased or made payments towards the vehicles after the 1 October, 2014. Car Emissions Lawyers said it represents 7,000 claimants who have not been offered compensation. Aman Johal, founder of Car Emissions Lawyers said: "The affected cars were only able to be sold in the United Kingdom due to the presence of defeat devices, and a number of our clients claim that the fix offered by Volkswagen in respect of the defective vehicles often causes other issues, including a decline in performance and fuel efficiency." The action was filed with the High Court in January 2016, and is being brought by Aman Johal in conjunction with Barristers Andrew Onslow QC of 3 Verulam Buildings and Tom Goodhead of 9 Gough Square. This action is being supported by Hausfeld LLP. WAL-MART STORES: "Ridgeway" Plaintiffs Get $5+ MM in Restitution ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan Illston granted in part and denied, in part, the plaintiff's post-trial motion in the case captioned CHARLES RIDGEWAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES INC., Defendant, Case No. 08-cv-05221-SI (N.D. Cal.). Judge Illston: (1) granted the plaintiffs' request for restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) in the amount of $5,861,147.00; (2) denied the plaintiffs' request for liquidated damages under California Labor Code section 1194.2; and (3) denied the plaintiffs' request for civil penalties under Labor Code section 1197.1. The plaintiffs are truck drivers in California previously employed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for some period of time between 1993 and the present. The plaintiffs previously went to trial on their minimum wage claims, alleging that Wal-Mart violated California minimum wage law by failing to pay class members the minimum wage for 11 tasks. On November 23, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiffs' favor on four of the 11 tasks at issue, finding that class members were paid less than the minimum wage by Wal-Mart for some or all hours worked for: performing pre-trip inspections, performing post-trip inspections, taking 10-minute rest breaks, and taking 10-hour layovers. The jury accepted the damages calculations set forth by plaintiffs' expert witness Dr. G. Michael Phillips and awarded damages to the class. The jury also found that Wal-Mart intentionally failed to pay minimum wage to class members in any pay period from October 10, 2007, to October 15, 2015. On February 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their UCL claim. The plaintiffs sought restitution under the UCL for October 10, 2004, through October 9, 2005, in the amount of at least $5,861,148. Judge Illston found that Wal-Mart's opposition, stating that the evidence does not support the plaintiffs' request for restitution, merely forwarded arguments that Wal-Mart made at trial and that the jury rejected. As with the jury, the judge also decided to adopt the figures set forth by Dr. Phillips at trial where he testified to the following figures totaling minimum wage violations as to class members from October 10, 2004, through October 9, 2005: Pre-trip inspections: $350,157 Post-trip inspections: $350,157 10-minute rest breaks: $466,528 10-hour layovers: $4,694,305 Thus, following the jury's verdict, Judge Illston awarded restitution to the class for a total of $5,861,147. The plaintiffs also argued that class members are entitled to $54,604,181 in liquidated damages under California Labor Code section 1194.2. Judge Illston, howerver, found that Wal-Mart presented evidence at trial demonstrating that it can meet the requirements of either good faith or a reasonable belief under subsection (b) of the statute. The judge thus declined to impose liquidated damages. Finally, the plaintiffs sought civil penalties in the amount of $25,698,300, pursuant to California Labor Code section 1197.1. Wal-Mart argued that the plaintiffs are not entitled to penalties because section 1197.1 does not provide a private right of action. Judge Illston found that Wal-Mart is correct that the plaintiffs case may not recover the penalties described in section 1197.1. The judge found that Labor Code section 1197.1 does not state that the prescribed penalties accrue directly to the employee. To the contrary, several provisions in the statute refer to remedies other than the civil penalty that accrue to the employee. The judge pointed out that the fact that the legislature specified within section 1197.1 which remedies are payable to the employee, but did not include the penalties at issue here, indicates that the legislature did not intend these penalties to be paid to the employee, as the plaintiffs suggested. The judge explained that an employee may enforce section 1197.1 through a representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The PAGA requires that, prior to initiating a civil lawsuit, the employee must have complied with various notice and administrative requirements. The judge found that the plaintiffs have not done so. A full-text copy of Judge Illston's January 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/ySUdYw from Leagle.com. Charles Ridgway, Jaime Famoso, Joshua Harold, Richard Byers, Dan Thatcher, Nino Pagtama, Farris Day, Karl Merhoff, Michael Krohn, Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq., Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M. Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones, Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP. Willie Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq., Wagner & Jones, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones, Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP. Time Opitz, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq., Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M. Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones, Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Paul Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine A. Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, George Charles Nierlich, III -- gnierlich@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Julian Wing-Kai Poon -- jpoon@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam Carl Smedstad -- asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, Angela Yue-Man Poon -- apoon@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcaher LLP, Blaine H. Evanson -- bevanson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr. -- cmcnatt@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, LLP, James H. Hanson -- jhanson@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, Jenna Musselman Yott -- jyott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Michael Li-Ming Wong -- mwong@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rachel S. Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Scott Alan Edelman -- sedelman@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutros@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law. WALT DISNEY: Settles Animators' Anti-Poaching Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Miller, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Walt Disney Co. has agreed to pay $100 million to settle a long- running lawsuit brought by animators and visual effects workers who alleged that several Hollywood companies had adhered to an anti-poaching pact that kept pay down. Burbank-based Disney, whose subsidiaries Pixar Animation Studios and Lucasfilm were also named in the class-action case, was the last entertainment company to agree to settle the dispute. Defendants including DreamWorks Animation, Sony Pictures Animation and 20th Century Fox's Blue Sky Studios agreed to settlements last year. In all, the deals would total about $170 million for the plaintiffs. The class-action lawsuit was filed by former DreamWorks Animation artist Robert Nitsch Jr. in September 2014. The complaint, lodged in U.S. District Court in San Jose, alleged visual effects and animation companies "conspired to systematically suppress the wages and salaries of those who they claim to prize as their greatest assets -- their own workers." The complaint alleged that the practice began in the 1980s when Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to an anti-poaching pact (before they were owned by Disney), whereby the companies agreed to not "cold call" each other's employees. The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of money including compensatory damages and legal costs, plus a permanent injunction to prohibit anti-poaching agreements. Disney's proposed settlement, filed on Jan. 31, must be approved by U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh. The agreement, which includes Pixar, Lucasfilm and another Disney subsidiary, Two Pic MC, would be the largest of any of the defendants' settlements. The class was certified by Koh in May; it totaled more than 10,000 people, according to a court filing at the time. "We achieved a recovery for the class that we think is substantial and fair," said attorney Steven G. Sklaver -- ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- of Susman Godfrey, who represented the plaintiffs along with lawyers from Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. "This is a conspiracy that involved suppressing compensation for employees all because it was viewed to be a cost that the companies didn't want to incur." Disney did not respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit was filed following a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into anti-poaching tactics used by companies including Pixar, Apple, Google and Intel. The companies settled with the Department of Justice in 2010, agreeing to a prohibition against engaging in anticompetitive no-solicitation agreements. After the Department of Justice's probe ended, those companies and others -- including Lucasfilm -- faced a separate class-action lawsuit over poaching claims that was brought by software engineers in 2012. That case, also overseen by Judge Koh, was settled in 2015. WELLS FARGO: "Layog" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to N.J. Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned CHRYSTIANE LAYOG, on individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00413, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and assigned Case Number 3:16-cv-02011. The case alleges failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to pay wages and overtime under the Labor Code, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due twice monthly, failure to pay wages upon termination of employment, and unlawful competition and unlawful business practices. Plaintiff was a teller for Defendant. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges, that Defendant WELLS FARGO is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an unknown business entity with many branches located throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq. Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961 Phone: (949) 458-9675 Fax: (949) 458-9679 E-mail: req@quintlaw.com abl@quintlaw.com - and - David R. Markham, ESQ. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1920 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 399-3995 Fax: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com WIRTZ REALTY: "Casarez" Suit Seeks Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled EDUARDO CAZAREZ, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WIRTZ REALTY CORPORATION, d/b/a WIRTZ RESIDENTIAL, d/b/a IVANHOE NURSERY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06814 (N.D. Ill.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: a. certifying and approving a class; b. approving the Settlement Agreement; c. approving the Notice of Proposed Settlement and Claim and Consent Form; and d. providing for other relief this Court deems appropriate. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yqhPwLzz The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and is predicated on Defendant's alleged failure to (a) fully pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime compensation during the three years prior to filing of suit; and (b) to compensate Plaintiff and the Collective Members for work allegedly performed off-the-clock. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were laborers employed by Defendant's tree nursery. The total number of the Collective Members is 21, which represents the entirety of Defendant's laborer employees during the three-year time period. Promptly after service of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledged overtime compensation was inadvertently not calculated using a seven-day work week, and the Parties worked together to recalculate overtime compensation due to Plaintiff and the Collective Members. Defendant has disputed, and continues to dispute, the allegation that Plaintiff, or the Collective Members were required to work "off-the- clock" without compensation. However, after extensive meetings and arm's length negotiations, in the interest of reaching an amicable resolution without the burdens, risks and expenses of protracted litigation, the Parties have agreed to a settlement of all claims, including the alleged off-the-clock claim, subject to this Court's approval. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 784 3541 - and - John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 840 Chicago, IL, 60604 Telephone: (312) 853 1450 The Defendant is represented by: Earl E. Farkas, Esq. GOZDECKI, DEL GIUDICE FARKAS & BROCATO LLP One East Wacker, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 782 5010 * Ogletree Deakins Attorneys Review Gorsuch Arbitration Opinions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Chapman Jr. and Christopher Murray, Esq., of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, in an article for Law360, report that on Jan. 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. As discussed in their article, "Supreme Court Jumps Into Class Action Waiver Fight," the high court recently announced it will consider this term whether the National Labor Relations Board can ban class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements under the National Labor Relations Act, or whether such waivers are protected under the Federal Arbitration Act. The current eight-member court faces the real risk of ending up in a 4-4 tie on this critical question, leaving it unresolved and the courts of appeals split. Judge Gorsuch, assuming he is confirmed and participates in these cases now pending before the Supreme Court, could cast the deciding vote and break the five-year-old deadlock between most courts and the NLRB on the contentious class action waiver issue. Although Messrs. Chapman and Murray recognize "past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results," they reviewed Judge Gorsuch's opinions touching on arbitration and related matters to try to discern which way he might lean. Here are some highlights. In one case -- Genberg v. Porter, 566 F. App'x 719 (10th Cir. 2014) -- Judge Gorsuch authored an opinion rejecting an employee's attempt to force his former employer's senior managers, board members and outside counsel to arbitrate his wrongful termination claims against them. Judge Gorsuch explained these individuals were not signatories to the plaintiff's arbitration agreement with his employer and agreed with a prior court decision that an arbitration agreement can "be invoked only by a signatory of the agreement, and only against another signatory." Although Genberg didn't involve class action issues, Judge Gorsuch's reasoning would be an impediment to class arbitration, which often seeks to include individuals in an arbitration who aren't parties to the underlying arbitration agreement. Judge Gorsuch's literal reading of arbitration agreements is consistent with employers' attempts to enforce class action waiver bans in those agreements. Reflecting similar reasoning, Judge Gorsuch dissented in another case involving arbitration -- Ragab v. Howard, 841 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2016). There, the court's majority refused to compel arbitration because the parties had entered not one but six different arbitration agreements containing provisions the majority found were in conflict and irreconcilable. The majority concluded the parties never had a meeting of the minds regarding arbitration so no enforceable agreement existed. Judge Gorsuch disagreed. He concluded the parties clearly intended to arbitrate, even if some of the nonessential details regarding how the arbitration would be carried out remained up in the air. "Because the plaintiff asked for and received assent to three arbitration clauses he drafted and signed three others, all in a commercial setting and while represented by counsel, I just don't see how he can now seriously claim that he never intended to arbitrate -- or how we might rightly rescue him from the consequences of his choice." In his dissent, Judge Gorsuch emphasized the FAA's requirement that arbitration agreements be treated just like other contracts. This is a critical line of reasoning used by employers in defending class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements. In another case -- Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners LP, 748 F.3d 975 (10th Cir. 2014) -- Judge Gorsuch wrote an opinion chastising the parties and the district court for failing to move quickly to determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate. After the defendant moved to compel arbitration, the district court allowed over 18 months of discovery and extensive motions practice on the threshold issue of whether an arbitration agreement existed. At the conclusion of this drawn-out process, the district court denied the motion to compel, finding disputed facts made it unclear whether an agreement to arbitrate was formed. Judge Gorsuch criticized the district court for failing to conduct a summary trial as required by the FAA to resolve these fact disputes promptly. "The object [under the FAA] is always to decide quickly -- summarily -- the proper venue for the case, whether it be the courtroom or the conference room, so the parties can get on with the merits of their dispute." Significantly, Judge Gorsuch embraced the view that one purpose of the FAA is to foster expedient dispute resolution. That presumption underlies several of the Supreme Court's more recent decisions approving class action waivers in arbitration agreements outside the employment context. In those cases, the Supreme Court reasoned that the FAA presumes arbitration will be bilateral since such arbitration is far quicker and less complicated than class arbitration. Also of note is Judge Gorsuch's dissent in N.L.R.B. v. Community Health Services, 812 F.3d 768 (10th Cir. 2016). That case did not involve arbitration under the FAA, but it did raise questions about the scope of the NLRB's authority in issuing new rules and the limits of courts' obligation to defer to the NLRB. In Community Health Services, the Tenth Circuit reviewed a board decision to award certain employees full backpay as a result of an improper reduction in their hours without deducting the amount of income those employees' earned from secondary employment. This was a significant change in the board's approach. It was well established in the board's prior cases involving unlawful terminations that interim earnings should be deducted from backpay awards to avoid giving the employee a windfall double recovery. The court majority deferred to the board and enforced its new rule. Judge Gorsuch dissented, finding the board's numerous policy justifications for the changed law were outside its authority under the NLRA. He concluded powerfully: "In the end, it's difficult to come away from this case without wondering if the board's actions stem from a frustration with the current statutory limits on its remedial powers -- a frustration that it cannot pursue more tantalizing goals like punishing employers for unlawful actions or maximizing employment." He continued: "But . . . frustration should not beget license. In our legal order the proper avenue for addressing any dissatisfaction with congressional limits on agency authority lies in new legislation, not administrative ipse dixit." Notably, Judge Gorsuch's strong dissent in Community Health Services is consistent with many of the objections employers have made to the board's class action waiver ban. Critics of that ban similarly chide the board for deviating from 80 years of precedent by seeking to solve perceived problems that are well beyond the board's limited jurisdiction to address. Finally, some of Judge Gorsuch's comments on class actions in general are relevant. In 2005, he authored an article on settlements in securities fraud class actions in which he observed that "economic incentives" in "securities litigation encourage class action lawyers to bring meritless claims and prompt corporate defendants to pay dearly to settle such claims." That same concern is one of the justifications for class action waivers generally because they allow the parties to focus on the merits of a claim rather than tangential litigation costs and risks. For example, in our brief on behalf of D.R. Horton Inc. in its challenge of the NLRB's class action waiver ban, we argued: [T]he mere possibility of certification may impose such substantial defense costs and risks on a defendant that it is forced to settle irrespective of the merits of the underlying claims . . . Employers thus have a legitimate interest in agreeing to procedures -- such as individualized arbitration -- allowing the parties to adjudicate the employee's claim on its merits while also avoiding substantial costs and risks unrelated to the strength of that claim. The above decisions and commentary offer some window into Judge Gorsuch's thinking on questions that will be at the heart of the Supreme Court's upcoming class action waiver cases. If Judge Gorsuch's views on the role of arbitration under the FAA, the problems posed by class actions and the limits on the board's authority continue along this trajectory, employers may have reason to be optimistic. * Seyfarth Shaw Attorney Analyzes Class Certification Rulings ------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq. of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports on the statistical study of class certification rulings throughout the Unites States in 2016. Not unlike real estate, location -- in terms of venue, the assigned judge, and applicable circuit case law -- is an all-important factor in class certification dynamics. Introduction Federal and state courts issued more favorable class certification rulings for the plaintiffs' bar in 2016 than in past years. Plaintiffs' lawyers continued to craft refined and more successful class certification theories to counter the more stringent Rule 23 certification requirements established in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). In the areas of employment discrimination, wage & hour, and ERISA class actions, the plaintiffs' bar scored exceedingly well in securing class certification rulings in 2016. In sum, class actions continue to be certified in significant numbers and certain "magnet" jurisdictions continue to issue decisions that encourage -- or, in effect, force -- the resolution of large numbers of claims through class action mechanisms. Anecdotally, surveys of corporate counsel confirm that complex workplace litigation -- and especially class action and multi- plaintiff lawsuits -- remains one of the chief exposures driving corporate legal budgetary expenditures, as well as the type of legal dispute that causes the most concern for their companies. The prime concern in that array of risks is now indisputably wage & hour litigation. Overall Certification Statistics A circuit-by-circuit analysis of the 244 class certification decisions in all varieties of workplace class action litigation is detailed in the following map. Wage & Hour Certification Trends While plaintiffs continued to achieve initial conditional certification of wage & hour collective actions in 2016, employers also secured significant victories in defeating conditional certification motions and obtaining decertification of Sec 216(b) collective actions. The percentage of successful motions for decertification brought by employers rose by nearly 10% in 2016. Most significantly, for the first time in over a decade, wage & hour lawsuit filings in federal courts decreased. An increase in FLSA filings over the past several years, however, caused the issuance of more FLSA certification rulings than in any other substantive area of complex employment litigation, i.e., 224 certification rulings in 2016, as compared to the 175 certification rulings in 2015. The analysis of these rulings shows that more cases are brought against employers in more "plaintiff-friendly" jurisdictions such as the judicial districts within the Second and Ninth Circuits. This trend is shown in the following map: The map of FLSA certification rulings is telling. First, it substantiates that the district courts within the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit are the epicenters of wage & hour class actions and collective actions. More cases were prosecuted and conditionally certified -- 33 certification orders in the Ninth Circuit and 29 certification orders in the Second Circuit -- in the district courts in those circuits than in any other areas of the country. The district courts in the Fifth, Eleventh, and Sixth Circuits were not far behind, with 22, 12, and 11 certification orders respectively in those jurisdictions. Second, as the burdens of proof reflect under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), plaintiffs won the overwhelming majority of "first stage" conditional certification motions (147 of 195 rulings, or approximately 76%); in terms of "second stage" decertification motions, plaintiffs also prevailed in a slight majority of those cases (16 of 29 rulings, or approximately 55% of the time). The "first stage" conditional certification statistics for 2016 are aligned to the numbers in 2015, when plaintiffs won 75% of "first stage" conditional certification motions. However, employers fared much better in 2016 on "second stage" decertification motions. Employers won decertification at a rate of 45%, which was up from 36% in 2015. The following chart illustrates this trend for 2016: Third, this reflects that there has been an on-going migration of skilled plaintiffs' class action lawyers into the wage & hour litigation space. Securing initial "first stage" conditional certification -- and foisting settlement pressure on an employer - - can be done quickly (almost right after the case is filed), with a minimal monetary investment in the case (e.g., no expert is needed, unlike the situation when certification is sought in an employment discrimination class action or ERISA class action), and without having to conduct significant discovery (per the case law that has developed under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b)). As a result, to the extent litigation of class actions and collective actions by plaintiffs' lawyers is viewed as an investment, prosecution of wage & hour lawsuits is a relatively low cost investment, without significant barriers to entry, and with the prospect of immediate returns as compared to other types of workplace class action litigation. Finally, as success in litigation often begets copy-cat filings, the increase in top wage & hour settlements in 2016 to $695.5 million as compared to $463.6 million in 2015 is likely to prompt more litigation too. Employment Discrimination & ERISA Certification Trends At the same time, the rulings in Wal-Mart and Comcast also fueled more critical thinking and crafting of case theories in employment discrimination and ERISA class action filings in 2016. The Supreme Court's two Rule 23 decisions have had the effect of forcing the plaintiffs' bar to "re-boot" the architecture of their class action theories. At least one result was the decision this past year in Tyson Foods, in which the Supreme Court accepted plaintiffs' arguments that, in effect, appeared to soften the requirements previously imposed in Wal-Mart and Comcast for maintaining and proving class claims. Hence, it is clear that the playbook on Rule 23 strategies is undergoing a continuous process of evolution. Filings of "smaller" employment discrimination class actions have increased due to a strategy whereby state or regional-type classes are asserted rather than nationwide mega-cases that Wal-Mart discouraged. In essence, at least in the employment discrimination area, the plaintiffs' litigation playbook is more akin to a strategy of "aim small, miss small." In turn, employment-related class certification motions outside of the wage & hour area were a mixed bag or tantamount to a "jump ball" in 2016, as 4 of the 8 were granted and 4 were denied. The following map demonstrates this array of certification rulings in Title VII and ADEA discrimination cases: In terms of the ERISA class action litigation scene in 2016, the focus continued to rest on precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court as it shaped and refined the scope of potential liability and defenses in ERISA class actions. The Wal-Mart decision also has changed the ERISA certification playing field by giving employers more grounds to oppose class certification. The decisions in 2016 show that class certification motions have the best chance of denial in the context of ERISA welfare plans, and ERISA defined contribution pension plans, where individualized notions of liability and damages are prevalent. Nonetheless, plaintiffs were more successful than defendants in ERISA class actions, as plaintiffs won 8 of 12 certification rulings in 2016. A map illustrating these trends is shown below: Overall Trends So what conclusions overall can be drawn on class certification trends in 2016? In the areas of employment discrimination, wage & hour, and ERISA, the plaintiffs' bar is converting their case filings into certification of classes at a high rate. Whereas class certification was a coin toss for employment discrimination cases (4 granted and 4 denied in 2016), class certification is relatively easier in ERISA cases (8 granted and 4 denied in 2016), but most prevalent in wage & hour litigation (with 147 conditional certification orders granted and 48 denied, as well as 13 decertification motions granted and 16 denied). The following bar graph details the win/loss percentages in each of these substantive areas: -- a 50% success rate for certification of employment discrimination class actions (both Title VII and age discrimination cases); -- a 66% success rate for certification of ERISA class actions; and, -- a 76% success rate for conditional certification of wage & hour collective actions. Obviously, the most certification activity in workplace class action litigation is in the wage & hour space. The trend over the last three years reflects a steady success rate of 70% to 76% for the plaintiffs' bar that is tilted toward plaintiff-friendly "magnet" jurisdictions were the case law favors workers and presents challenges to employers seeking to block certification. Yet, in 2016, employers increased their odds of decertifying wage & hour cases to 45% as compared to 36% in 2015. Comparatively, the trend over the past three years for certification orders is illustrated in the following chart: While each case is different and no two class actions or collective actions are identical, these statistics paint the all- too familiar picture that employers have experienced over the last several years. The new wrinkle to influence these factors in 2017 is the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Tyson Foods. To the extent it assists plaintiffs in their certification theories, future certification decisions may well trend further upward for workers. Lessons For Employers From 2016 There are multiple lessons to be drawn from these trends in 2016. First, while Wal-Mart undoubtedly heightened commonality standards under Rule 23(a)(2) starting in 2011, and Comcast tightened the predominance factors at least for damages under Rule 23(b) in 2013, the plaintiffs' bar has crafted theories and "work arounds" to maintain or increase their chances of successfully securing certification orders. In 2016, their certification numbers were up to the highest levels in the last three years. Second, the defense-minded decisions in Wal-Mart and Comcast have not taken hold in any significant respect in the context of FLSA certification decisions for wage & hour cases. Efforts by the defense bar to use the commonality standards from Wal-Mart and the predominance analysis from Comcast have not impacted the ability of the plaintiffs' bar to secure certification orders under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). Third, there are "cracks in the defense wall" appearing in the case law relative to efforts by employers to create sustained barriers to class certification. The Supreme Court's decision in 2016 in Tyson Foods is the most prominent example of how "work arounds" are taking place to enable plaintiffs' lawyers to achieve class certification. Fourth, while monetary relief in a Rule 23(b)(2) context is severely limited, certification is the "holy grail" in class actions, and certification of any type of class -- even a non-monetary injunctive relief class claim -- often drives settlement decisions. This is especially true for employment discrimination, ERISA, and wage & hour class actions, as plaintiffs' lawyers can recover awards of attorneys' fees under fee-shifting statutes in an employment litigation context. In this respect, the plaintiffs' bar is nothing if not ingenuous, and targeted, strategic certification theories (e.g., issue certification on a limited discrete aspect of a case) are the new norm in federal and state courthouses. Fifth, during the certification stage, courts are more willing than ever before to assess facts that overlap both certification and merits issues, and to apply a more practical assessment of the Rule 23(b) requirement of predominance, which focuses on the utility and superiority of a preclusive class-wide trial of common issues. Courts are also more willing to apply a heightened degree of scrutiny to expert opinions offered to establish proof of the Rule 23 requirements. In sum, notwithstanding these shifts in proof standards and the contours of judicial decision-making, the likelihood of class certification rulings favoring plaintiffs are not only "alive and well" in the post-Wal-Mart and Comcast era, but also thriving. * Value of Wage-and-Hour Class Action Settlements Up in 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------ David McCann, writing for CFO.com, reports that the dollar volume of settlements of class-action litigation against U.S. companies over employee-compensation practices soared in 2016 for a second year in a row, and 2017 is likely to bring more of the same, according to national law firm Seyfarth Shaw. The value of settlements in so-called "wage-and-hour" cases last year was more than three times the 2014 level (see chart at the bottom of this article). By comparison, settlements for the other three major types of workplace lawsuits -- employment discrimination, ERISA, and government-enforcement cases -- all went down in 2016 after reaching all-time highs in 2014 and 2015. The dollar volume of settlements of class-action litigation against U.S. companies over employee-compensation practices soared in 2016 for a second year in a row, and 2017 is likely to bring more of the same, according to national law firm Seyfarth Shaw. The value of settlements in so-called "wage-and-hour" cases last year was more than three times the 2014 level (see chart at the bottom of this article). By comparison, settlements for the other three major types of workplace lawsuits -- employment discrimination, ERISA, and government-enforcement cases -- all went down in 2016 after reaching all-time highs in 2014 and 2015. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *